The effect of intravenous bolus rates on patient outcomes is a complex and crucial aspect of critical care. Fluid challenges are commonly used in critically ill patients to manage their hemodynamic status, but there is limited information available on the specifics of when, how much, and at what rate fluids should be administered during these challenges. The aim of this review is to thoroughly examine the relationship between intravenous bolus rates, fluid-electrolyte balance, and mortality and to analyze key research findings and methodologies to understand these complex dynamics better. Fluid challenges are commonly employed in managing hemodynamic status in this population, yet there is limited information on the optimal timing, volume, and rate of fluid administration. Utilizing a narrative review approach, the analysis identified nine relevant studies that investigate these variables. The findings underscore the importance of a precise and individualized approach in clinical settings, highlighting the need to tailor intravenous bolus rates to each patient\'s specific needs to maximize outcomes. This review provides valuable insights that can inform and optimize clinical practices in critical care, emphasizing the necessity of meticulous and exact strategies in fluid administration.

UNASSIGNED: Intravenous fluid therapy is a ubiquitous intervention for the management of patients with sepsis, however excessive cumulative fluid balance has been shown to result in worse outcomes. Hyperoncotic albumin is presented in low volumes, is an effective resuscitation fluid and may have effects beyond plasma volume expansion alone. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety and effectiveness of hyperoncotic albumin solutions in the management of sepsis.
UNASSIGNED: We searched four databases and two trial registries for controlled clinical trials of hyperoncotic albumin for management of sepsis. Review outcomes were mortality, need for renal replacement therapy, cumulative-fluid balance, and need for organ support. We used methods guided by the Cochrane Handbook for reviews of clinical interventions. Studies were assessed using Cochrane\'s Risk of Bias 2 tool. We performed pairwise meta-analysis where possible. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
UNASSIGNED: We included six trials; four (2772 patients) were meta-analysed. Most studies had moderate or high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality for septic patients receiving hyperoncotic albumin compared to other intravenous fluids (OR 0.95, [95% CI: 0.8-1.12]); in patients with septic shock (2013 patients) there was a significant reduction (OR 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68-0.98]). There was no significant difference in safety outcomes. Hyperoncotic albumin was associated with variable reduction in early cumulative fluid balance and faster resolution of shock.
UNASSIGNED: There is no good-quality evidence to support the use of hyperoncotic albumin in patients with sepsis, but it may reduce short-term mortality in the sub-groups with septic shock. It appears safe in terms of need for renal replacement therapy and is associated with reduced early cumulative fluid balance and faster resolution of shock. Larger, better quality randomised controlled trials in patients with septic shock may enhance the certainty of these findings.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO ref: CRD42021150674.

Background Timely and effective fluid resuscitation is vital for stabilizing sepsis while avoiding volume overload. We aimed to assess how the administration of a 30 mL/kg bolus fluid affects patients with sepsis within three hours of clinical outcomes. Methods This multicenter observational study included adult patients diagnosed with sepsis in 17 intensive care units at tertiary hospitals in Japan between July 2019 and August 2020. The clinical outcomes of patients with sepsis who received ≥30 mL/kg bolus fluid within three hours (30 × 3 group) were compared with those who received <30 mL/kg fluid (non-30 × 3 group). Results Of 172 eligible patients, 74 (43.0%) belonged to the 30 × 3 group, and 98 (57.0%) belonged to the non-30 × 3 group. The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 9 (interquartile range (Q1-Q3): 7-11) in the 30 × 3 group and 7 (Q1-Q3: 4-9) in the non-30 × 3 group (P < 0.01). The 28-day mortality rate was 29.7% in the 30 × 3 group and 12.2% in the non-30 × 3 group (P < 0.01). However, the adjusted odds ratio by the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis with propensity score for the 28-day mortality rate of the 30 × 3 group compared with that in the non-30 × 3 group was 2.17 (95% confidence interval: 0.85-5.54). Among the propensity score-matched patients, the 28-day mortality rate was 30% in the 30 × 3 (n = 70) and non-30 × 3 (n = 95) groups, respectively (P = 0.72). Conclusions Patients with sepsis who received the 30 mL/kg bolus fluid within three hours experienced more severe clinical outcomes. However, it was not associated with the increased odds of the 28-day mortality.

UNASSIGNED: Fluid resuscitation is an essential component for sepsis treatment. Although several studies demonstrated that dynamic variables were more accurate than static variables for prediction of fluid responsiveness, fluid resuscitation guidance by dynamic variables is not standard for treatment. The objectives were to determine the effects of dynamic inferior vena cava (IVC)-guided versus (vs.) static central venous pressure (CVP)-guided fluid resuscitation in septic patients on mortality; and others, i.e., resuscitation targets, shock duration, fluid and vasopressor amount, invasive respiratory support, length of stay and adverse events.
UNASSIGNED: A single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted at Thammasat University Hospital between August 2016 and April 2020. Septic patients were stratified by acute physiologic and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) <25 or ≥25 and randomized by blocks of 2 and 4 to fluid resuscitation guidance by dynamic IVC or static CVP.
UNASSIGNED: Of 124 patients enrolled, 62 were randomized to each group, and one of each was excluded from mortality analysis. Baseline characteristics were comparable. The 30-day mortality rates between dynamic IVC vs. static CVP groups were not different (34.4% vs. 45.9%, p=0.196). Relative risk for 30-day mortality of dynamic IVC group was 0.8 (95%CI=0.5-1.2, p=0.201). Different outcomes were median (interquartile range) of shock duration (0.8 (0.4-1.6) vs. 1.5 (1.1-3.1) days, p=0.001) and norepinephrine (NE) dose (6.8 (3.9-17.8) vs. 16.1 (7.6-53.6) milligrams, p=0.008 and 0.1 (0.1-0.3) vs. 0.3 (0.1-0.8) milligram⋅kilogram -1, p=0.017). Others were not different.
UNASSIGNED: Dynamic IVC-guided fluid resuscitation does not affect mortality of septic patients. However, this may reduce shock duration and NE dose, compared with static CVP guidance.

Background: Normal saline (NS) has been the choice fluid for volume resuscitation in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) for decades. Large volume resuscitation with NS can lead to hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and is associated with a higher incidence of major adverse kidney events compared to balanced fluids (BF). Objective: Compare safety and effectiveness of fluid resuscitation with BF vs NS in adult patients with DKA. Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who received NS or BF for DKA treatment between July 2020 and August 2021. Primary endpoint was time to DKA resolution. Secondary endpoints included time to anion gap ≤12, HCO3 ≥15 and ≥18 mmol/L, acute kidney injury, and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Results: 110 patients were included (NS 55% (n = 60), BF 45% (n = 50)). Time to DKA resolution was faster in patients who received BF vs NS (13 (10 - 19) hours vs 17 (11 - 25) hours, P = 0.02). Treatment with NS was associated with a longer time to resolution of DKA when adjusted for initial bicarbonate and AKI at admission. Conclusion: BF was associated with a shorter time to DKA resolution compared to NS.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital management of severely burned patients is extremely challenging. It should include adequate analgesia, decision-making on the necessity of prehospital endotracheal intubation and the administration of crystalloid fluids. Guidelines recommend immediate transport to specialised burn centres when certain criteria are met. To date, there is still insufficient knowledge on the characteristics of prehospital emergency treatment. We sought to investigate the current practice and its potential effects on patient outcome.
METHODS: We conducted a single centre, retrospective cohort analysis of severely burned patients (total burned surface area > 20%), admitted to the Berlin burn centre between 2014 and 2019. The relevant data was extracted from Emergency Medical Service reports and digital patient charts for exploratory data analysis. Primary outcome was 28-day-mortality.
RESULTS: Ninety patients (male/female 60/30, with a median age of 52 years [interquartile range, IQR 37-63], median total burned surface area 36% [IQR 25-51] and median body mass index 26.56 kg/m2 [IQR 22.86-30.86] were included. The median time from trauma to ED arrival was 1 h 45 min; within this time, on average 1961 ml of crystalloid fluid (0.48 ml/kg/%TBSA, IQR 0.32-0.86) was administered. Most patients received opioid-based analgesia. Times from trauma to ED arrival were longer for patients who were intubated. Neither excessive fluid treatment (> 1000 ml/h) nor transport times > 2 h was associated with higher mortality. A total of 31 patients (34,4%) died within the hospital stay. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that non-survival was linked to age > 65 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.5, 95% CI: 1.27-9.66), inhalation injury (OR 3.57, 95% CI: 1.36-9.36), burned surface area > 60% (OR 5.14, 95% CI 1.57-16.84) and prehospital intubation (5.38, 95% CI: 1.92-15.92).
CONCLUSIONS: We showed that severely burned patients frequently received excessive fluid administration prehospitally and that this was not associated with more hemodynamic stability or outcome. In our cohort, patients were frequently intubated prehospitally, which was associated with increased mortality rates. Further research and emergency medical staff training should focus on adequate fluid application and cautious decision-making on the risks and benefits of prehospital intubation.
BACKGROUND: German Clinical Trial Registry (ID: DRKS00033516).

Consider a more conservative approach to fluid resuscitation in mild acute pancreatitis to avoid fluid overload without sacrificing patient-oriented clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in sepsis and a urine output <0.5 mL/kg/h associated with increased mortality is incorporated into AKI diagnosis. We aimed to identify the urine-output threshold associated with increased AKI incidence and hypothesized that a higher urine output than a specified threshold, which differs from the predominantly used 0.5 mL/kg/h threshold, would be associated with an increased AKI incidence.
METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective observational study. This study included adult patients newly diagnosed with sepsis and requiring intensive care. Urine output on the day of sepsis diagnosis was categorized as low, moderate, or high (<0.5, 0.5-1.0, and >1.0 mL/kg/h, respectively), and we compared AKI incidence, renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirement, and 28-day survival by category. Estimated probabilities for these outcomes were also compared after adjusting for patient background and hourly fluid administration.
RESULTS: Among 172 eligible patients, AKI occurred in 46.3%, 48.3%, and 53.1% of those with high, moderate, and low urine output, respectively. The probability of AKI was lower in patients with high urine output than in those with low output (43.6% vs 56.5%; P = .028), whereas RRT requirement was lower in patients with high and moderate urine output (11.7% and 12.8% vs 49.1%; P < .001). Patients with low urine output demonstrated significantly lower survival (87.7% vs 82.8% and 67.8%; P = .018). Cubic spline curves for AKI, RRT, and survival prediction indicated different urine-output thresholds, including <1.2 to 1.3 mL/kg/h for AKI and <0.6 to 0.8 mL/kg/h for RRT and mortality risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Urine output >1.0 mL/kg/h on the day of sepsis diagnosis was associated with lower AKI incidence. The urine-output threshold was higher for developing AKI than for RRT requirement or mortality.

Sepsis is a major cause of mortality worldwide and is the third-leading cause of death in the United States. Sepsis is resource-intensive and requires prompt recognition and treatment to reduce mortality. The impact of sepsis is not only on in-hospital survival but extends into post-discharge quality of life and risk of re-admission. As the understanding of sepsis physiology evolved, so have the recommended screening tools and treatment protocol which challenge prior standards of care. There have been noteworthy efforts by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish core measure bundles. This review highlights both the 2021 SSC International Guidelines and the 2015 CMS Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Core Measure Bundle, or SEP-1. Notably, the SEP-1 bundle was implemented as a value-based purchasing program, linking care of sepsis patients to financial incentives. The objective is to explore the most current evidence-based data to inform clinical practice while utilizing the available guidelines as a roadmap.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the use of albumin among adults undergoing thoracic surgery in the United States, compare baseline characteristics, clinical and cost outcomes of recipients versus nonrecipients, and determine albumin\'s contribution to total hospital costs.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: Nationwide sample of US hospitals.
METHODS: Adults undergoing open and minimally invasive thoracic surgery between 2011 and 2017.
METHODS: Albumin on the day of surgery (identified using itemized hospital billing logs).
RESULTS: Albumin was used in 170 of 342 US hospitals, among 13% and 7% of 14,672 and 22,532 patients who, respectively, underwent open and minimally invasive thoracic surgery (median volume 500 mL). Baseline comorbidities and organ-supportive treatments were several-fold more prevalent among recipients (particularly vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and red cell transfusions). In standardized mortality ratio propensity score weighted analysis, albumin use was not associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted relative risk 1.17 [0.72, 1.92] and 1.51 [0.97, 2.34], with open and minimally invasive procedures), but was associated with morbidity and higher costs, more so with minimally invasive procedures than with open surgery. Total costs among recipients were higher by $4,744 ($3,591, $5,897) and $5,088 ($4,075, $6,100) for open and minimally invasive procedures, respectively. Albumin accounted for 2.6% of this difference (median $124 [$83-$189] per patient).
CONCLUSIONS: Albumin use varies widely across hospitals, and 9% of patients receive it (median 500 mL). Use was not associated with in-hospital mortality and was associated with more morbidity and cost. The cost of albumin accounted for a trivial portion of hospital costs. Clinical trials must examine the effects of albumin on complications and costs after thoracic surgery.