Silversides Jonathan A, McAuley Daniel F, Blackwood Bronagh, Fan Eddy, Ferguson Andrew J, Marshall John C
Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Department of Critical Care Services, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK.
J Intensive Care Soc. 2020 May;21(2):111-118. doi: 10.1177/1751143719846442. Epub 2019 May 13.
Accumulation of a positive fluid balance is common in critically ill patients, and is associated with adverse outcomes, including mortality. However, there are few randomised clinical trials to guide clinicians as to the most appropriate fluid strategy following initial resuscitation and on the use of deresuscitation (removal of accumulated fluid using diuretics and/or renal replacement therapy). To inform the design of randomised trials, we surveyed critical care physicians with regard to perceptions of fluid overload in critical care, self-reported practice, acceptability of a variety of approaches to deresuscitation, appropriate safety parameters, and overall acceptability of a randomised trial of deresuscitation. Of 524 critical care specialists completing the survey, the majority practiced in mixed medical/surgical intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Most (309 of 363 respondents, 85%) believed fluid overload to be a modifiable source of morbidity; there was strong support (395 of 457, 86%) for a randomised trial of deresuscitation in critical illness. Marked practice variability was evident among respondents. In a given clinical scenario, self-reported practice ranged from the administration of fluid (N = 59, 14%) to the administration of a diuretic (N = 285, 67%). The majority (95%) considered it appropriate to administer diuretics for fluid overload in the setting of noradrenaline infusion and to continue to administer diuretics despite mild dysnatraemias, hypotension, metabolic alkalosis, and hypokalaemia. The majority of critical care physicians view fluid overload as a common and modifiable source of morbidity; deresuscitation is widely practiced, and there is widespread support for randomised trials of deresuscitation in critical illness.
在危重症患者中,正液体平衡的累积很常见,并且与包括死亡率在内的不良结局相关。然而,几乎没有随机临床试验来指导临床医生在初始复苏后采用最合适的液体策略以及使用脱复苏(使用利尿剂和/或肾脏替代疗法清除累积的液体)。为了为随机试验的设计提供信息,我们就危重症中液体超负荷的认知、自我报告的实践、各种脱复苏方法的可接受性、适当的安全参数以及脱复苏随机试验的总体可接受性对重症监护医生进行了调查。在完成调查的524名重症监护专家中,大多数在英国的综合内科/外科重症监护病房工作。大多数(363名受访者中的309名,85%)认为液体超负荷是发病率的一个可改变因素;对于危重症脱复苏的随机试验有强烈支持(457名中的395名,86%)。受访者之间存在明显的实践差异。在给定的临床场景中,自我报告的实践范围从给予液体(N = 59,14%)到给予利尿剂(N = 285,67%)。大多数(95%)认为在去甲肾上腺素输注的情况下,对于液体超负荷给予利尿剂是合适的,并且尽管存在轻度低钠血症、低血压、代谢性碱中毒和低钾血症,仍继续给予利尿剂。大多数重症监护医生认为液体超负荷是发病率的常见且可改变因素;脱复苏广泛应用,并且对危重症脱复苏随机试验有广泛支持。