Suppr超能文献

急诊普外科脓毒症患者的术前液体复苏:真的重要吗?

Pre-operative fluid resuscitation in the emergency general surgery septic patient: does it really matter?

机构信息

Einstein Healthcare Network, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Einstein Medical Center, Klein Building, Suite 101, 5401 Old York Road, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA.

R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

出版信息

BMC Emerg Med. 2021 Jul 22;21(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00479-3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Emergency general surgery (EGS) patients presenting with sepsis remain a challenge. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends a 30 mL/kg fluid bolus in these patients, but recent studies suggest an association between large volume crystalloid resuscitation and increased mortality. The optimal amount of pre-operative fluid resuscitation prior to source control in patients with intra-abdominal sepsis is unknown. This study aims to determine if increasing volume of resuscitation prior to surgical source control is associated with worsening outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an 8-year retrospective chart review of EGS patients undergoing surgery for abdominal sepsis within 24 h of admission. Patients in hemorrhagic shock and those with outside hospital index surgeries were excluded. We grouped patients by increasing pre-operative resuscitation volume in 10 ml/kg intervals up to > 70 ml/kg and later grouped them into < 30 ml/kg or ≥ 30 ml/kg. A relative risk regression model compared amounts of fluid administration. Mortality was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were time to operation, ventilator days, and length of stay (LOS). Groups were compared by quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and SOFA scoring systems.

RESULTS

Of the 301 patients included, the mean age was 55, 51% were male, 257 (85%) survived to discharge. With increasing fluid per kg (< 10 to < 70 ml/kg), there was an increasing mortality per decile, 8.8% versus 31.6% (p = 0.004). Patients who received < 30 mL/kg had lower mortality (11.3 vs 21%) than those who received > 30 ml/kg (p = 0.02). These groups had median qSOFA scores (1.0 vs. 1.0, p = 0.06). There were no differences in time to operation (6.1 vs 4.9 h p = 0.11), ventilator days (1 vs 3, p = 0.08), or hospital LOS (8 vs 9 days, p = 0.57). Relative risk regression correcting for age and physiologic factors showed no significant differences in mortality between the fluid groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater pre-operative resuscitation volumes were initially associated with significantly higher mortality, despite similar organ failure scores. However, fluid volumes were not associated with mortality following adjustment for other physiologic factors in a regression model. The amount of pre-operative volume resuscitation was not associated with differences in time to operation, ventilator days, ICU or hospital LOS.

摘要

目的

急诊普外科(EGS)患者出现脓毒症仍然是一个挑战。拯救脓毒症运动(Surviving Sepsis Campaign)建议对这些患者进行 30ml/kg 的液体冲击,但最近的研究表明,大量晶体液复苏与死亡率增加有关。在腹腔脓毒症患者接受手术前控制源之前,最佳的术前液体复苏量尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定在手术源控制前增加复苏量是否与预后恶化有关。

方法

我们对 8 年内接受手术治疗的腹腔脓毒症 EGS 患者进行了回顾性图表审查,这些患者在入院后 24 小时内接受手术。排除失血性休克患者和院外指数手术患者。我们将患者按术前复苏量每 10ml/kg 增加的间隔分组,直到>70ml/kg,然后将他们分为<30ml/kg 或≥30ml/kg。相对风险回归模型比较了液体输注量。死亡率是主要的观察结果。次要结果是手术时间、呼吸机使用天数和住院时间(LOS)。通过快速序贯器官衰竭评估(quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment,qSOFA)和 SOFA 评分系统对各组进行比较。

结果

在 301 名患者中,平均年龄为 55 岁,51%为男性,257 名(85%)存活至出院。随着每公斤液体量的增加(<10 至<70ml/kg),死亡率每增加一个十分位数,分别为 8.8%和 31.6%(p=0.004)。接受<30ml/kg 液体复苏的患者死亡率(11.3%)低于接受>30ml/kg 液体复苏的患者(21%)(p=0.02)。这两组的 qSOFA 评分中位数(1.0 分比 1.0 分,p=0.06)相似。手术时间(6.1 小时比 4.9 小时,p=0.11)、呼吸机使用天数(1 天比 3 天,p=0.08)或住院 LOS(8 天比 9 天,p=0.57)均无差异。对年龄和生理因素进行回归校正后,两组之间的死亡率无显著差异。

结论

尽管器官衰竭评分相似,但较大的术前复苏量最初与死亡率显著增加相关。然而,在回归模型中,考虑到其他生理因素后,液体量与死亡率无关。术前容量复苏量与手术时间、呼吸机使用天数、重症监护病房或住院时间无差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb14/8296734/84edf86b1646/12873_2021_479_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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