• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

败血症透析患者的积极与保守液体复苏。

Aggressive versus conservative fluid resuscitation in septic hemodialysis patients.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Northwell Health - Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, United States.

Department of Medicine, Northwell Health - Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, United States.

出版信息

Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Aug;46:416-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.10.037. Epub 2020 Oct 24.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2020.10.037
PMID:33129646
Abstract

PURPOSE

Sepsis and bacterial infections are common in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We aimed to compare patients with ESRD on hemodialysis presenting to hospital with severe sepsis or septic shock who received <20 ml/kg of intravenous fluid to those who received ≥20 ml/kg during initial resuscitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients with ICD codes for discharge diagnosis of sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, ESRD, and hemodialysis admitted to our institution between 2015 and 2018.

RESULTS

We present outcomes for a total of 104 patients - 51 patients in conservative group and 53 in aggressive group. The mean age was 69.5 ± 11.2 years and 71 ± 11.5 years in the conservative group and aggressive group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of ICU admission, and ICU or hospital length of stay between the two groups. Complications such as volume overload, rate of intubation, and urgent dialysis were not found to be significantly different.

CONCLUSION

We found that aggressive fluid resuscitation with ≥20 ml/kg may not be detrimental in the initial resuscitation of ESRD patients with SeS or SS. However, a clinical decision of volume responsiveness should be made on a case-by-case basis rather than a universal approach for fluid resuscitation in ESRD patients.

摘要

目的

终末期肾病(ESRD)患者常发生脓毒症和细菌感染。本研究旨在比较在初始复苏期间接受 <20ml/kg 静脉补液与接受 ≥20ml/kg 静脉补液的 ESRD 血液透析患者因严重脓毒症或脓毒性休克住院的情况。

材料和方法

我们对 2015 年至 2018 年期间因脓毒症、严重脓毒症、脓毒性休克、ESRD 和血液透析的出院诊断 ICD 编码而入住我院的成年患者进行了回顾性图表审查。

结果

共纳入 104 例患者,其中保守组 51 例,积极组 53 例。保守组和积极组的平均年龄分别为 69.5±11.2 岁和 71±11.5 岁。两组间 ICU 入院率、ICU 或住院时间均无显著差异。两组间并发症如容量超负荷、插管率和紧急透析率无显著差异。

结论

我们发现,对于 SeS 或 SS 的 ESRD 患者,积极进行 ≥20ml/kg 的液体复苏可能不会产生不良影响。然而,应根据具体情况而非对所有 ESRD 患者进行普遍的液体复苏方法来做出容量反应性的临床决策。

相似文献

1
Aggressive versus conservative fluid resuscitation in septic hemodialysis patients.败血症透析患者的积极与保守液体复苏。
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Aug;46:416-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.10.037. Epub 2020 Oct 24.
2
Fluid resuscitation in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock: A case control study.血液透析终末期肾病伴严重脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的液体复苏:病例对照研究。
J Crit Care. 2020 Feb;55:157-162. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.10.008. Epub 2019 Oct 23.
3
Association Between Volume of Fluid Resuscitation and Intubation in High-Risk Patients With Sepsis, Heart Failure, End-Stage Renal Disease, and Cirrhosis.容量复苏与高危患者脓毒症、心力衰竭、终末期肾病和肝硬化患者插管的关系。
Chest. 2020 Feb;157(2):286-292. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.09.029. Epub 2019 Oct 14.
4
Assessment of Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure and End-Stage Kidney Disease after Fluid Resuscitation for Sepsis and Septic Shock.评估脓毒症和感染性休克液体复苏后心力衰竭和终末期肾病患者的结局。
J Emerg Med. 2024 Jun;66(6):e670-e679. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.02.001. Epub 2024 Feb 16.
5
Assessing the impact of CKD on outcomes in septic shock patients receiving standard Vs reduced initial fluid volume.评估 CKD 对接受标准与减少初始液体量的脓毒性休克患者结局的影响。
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Oct;38(10):2147-2150. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.07.055. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
6
Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database.严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克中的液体管理、模式和结局:对大型国家数据库的分析。
Intensive Care Med. 2017 May;43(5):625-632. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4675-y. Epub 2017 Jan 27.
7
Evaluation and Predictors of Fluid Resuscitation in Patients With Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock.严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者液体复苏的评估和预测因素。
Crit Care Med. 2019 Nov;47(11):1582-1590. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003960.
8
Association of Fluid Resuscitation Initiation Within 30 Minutes of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Recognition With Reduced Mortality and Length of Stay.严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克识别后30分钟内开始液体复苏与降低死亡率及缩短住院时间的关联。
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;68(3):298-311. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.02.044. Epub 2016 Apr 14.
9
Outcomes of CMS-mandated fluid administration among fluid-overloaded patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.CMS 规定的液体管理在脓毒症液体超负荷患者中的结果:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 May;55:157-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.03.004. Epub 2022 Mar 10.
10
Clinical Factors and Outcomes of Dialysis-Dependent End-Stage Renal Disease Patients with Emergency Department Septic Shock.急诊科感染性休克的透析依赖终末期肾病患者的临床因素及预后
J Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;54(1):16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.09.001. Epub 2017 Oct 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Restrictive fluid resuscitation versus liberal fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock: comparison of outcomes.感染性休克患者的限制性液体复苏与开放性液体复苏:结局比较
Am J Transl Res. 2025 Mar 15;17(3):2311-2321. doi: 10.62347/PGBB6148. eCollection 2025.
2
European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) 2025 clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients: part 2-the volume of resuscitation fluids.欧洲重症监护医学学会(ESICM)2025年成人危重症患者液体治疗临床实践指南:第2部分——复苏液体量
Intensive Care Med. 2025 Mar;51(3):461-477. doi: 10.1007/s00134-025-07840-1. Epub 2025 Mar 31.
3
Fluid management strategies and their interaction with mechanical ventilation: from experimental studies to clinical practice.液体管理策略及其与机械通气的相互作用:从实验研究到临床实践
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2023 Jul 21;11(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s40635-023-00526-2.