Jacklyn O’Brien

Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: the effect of increasing fluid balance on mortality.

Purpose: To determine whether progressively increasing fluid balance after initial fluid resuscitation for septic shock is associated with increased mortality. Methods: A retrospective review of the use of intravenous fluids in patients with septic shock in a large university affiliated hospital with 56 medical–surgical intensive care unit beds. We analyzed the data of 350 patients with septic shock who were managed according to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Based on net fluid balance at 24 hours, we examined the results of increase in positive fluid balance on the risk of in-hospital mortality. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the amount of fluid balance by 24 hours, based on 6-L aliquots. Results: At 24 hours, the average fluid balance was +6.5 L. After correcting for age and sequential organ failure assessment score, a more positive fluid balance at 24 hours significantly increased the risk of in-hospital mortality. Using Cox proportional hazard analysis, excess 12-, 18-, and 24-L positive fluid balance had higher risk of mortality than those patients with a neutral to positive 6-L fluid balance (reference group). Adjusted hazard ratios, 1.519 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.353-1.685), 1.740 (95% CI, 1.467-2.013), and 1.620 (95% CI, 1.197-2.043), respectively, P < .05. Conclusion: In patients with septic shock resuscitated according to current guidelines, a more positive fluid balance at 24 hours is associated with an increase in the risk of mortality. Optimal survival occurred at neutral fluid balance and up to 6-L positive fluid balance at 24 hours after the development of septic shock.

Red Cell Distribution Width and Outcome in Patients With Septic Shock

Introduction: Red cell distribution width (RDW) is reflective of systemic inflammation. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between RDW (on day 1 of development of septic shock) and mortality. Methods: A total of 279 patients with septic shock were included. We categorized the patients into quintiles based on RDW as follows: <13.5%, 13.5% to 15.5%, 15.6% to 17.5%, 17.5% to 19.4%, and >19.4%. Results: Red cell distribution width was a strong predictor of hospital mortality with a significant risk gradient across RDW quintiles after multivariable adjustment: RDW 13.5% to 15.5% (odds ratio [OR], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-23.4; P = .06); RDW 15.6% to 17.5% (OR, 8.0; 95% CI, 1.5-41.6; P = .01); RDW 17.6% to 19.4% (OR, 25.3; 95% CI, 4.3-149.2; P < .001); and RDW >19.4% (OR, 12.3; 95% CI, 2.1-73.3; P = .006), all relative to patients with RDW <13.5%. Similar significant robust associations were present for intensive care unit mortality. Estimating the receiver–operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) showed that RDW has very good discriminative power for hospital mortality (AUC = 0.74). The AUC was 0.69 for Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and 0.69 for sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA). When adding RDW to APACHE II, the AUC increased from 0.69 to 0.77. Conclusions: Red cell distribution width on day 1 of septic shock is a robust predictor of mortality. The RDW is inexpensive and commonly measured. The RDW fared better than either APACHE II or SOFA, and the sum of RDW and APACHE II was a stronger predictor of mortality than either one alone.

A Model for Identifying Patients Who May Not Need Neurologic Intensive Care Unit Admission Resource Utilization Study

Purpose: Limited resources, neurointensivists, and neurologic intensive care unit (neuro-ICU) beds warrant investigating models for predicting who will benefit from admission to neuro-ICU. This study presents a possible model for identifying patients who might be too well to benefit from admission to a neuro-ICU. Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients admitted to our 16-bed neuro-ICU between November 2009 and February 2013. We used the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) outcomes database to identify patients who on day 1 of neuro-ICU admission received 1 or more of 30 subsequent active life-supporting treatments. We compared 2 groups of patients: low-risk monitor (LRM; patients who did not receive active treatment [AT] on the first day and whose risk of ever receiving AT was ≤10%) and AT (patients who received at least 1 of the 30 ICU treatments on any day of their ICU admission). Results: There were 873 (46%) admissions in the LRM group and 1006 (54%) admissions in the AT group. The ICU length of stay in days was 1.7 (±1.9) for the LRM group versus 4.5 (±5.5) for the AT group. The ICU mortality was 0.8% for the LRM group compared to 14% for the AT group (odds ratio [OR] = 17.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.2-37.8, P < .0001). Hospital mortality was 1.9% for the LRM group compared to 19% for the AT group (OR = 9.7; 95% CI, 5.8-16.1, P < .0001). Conclusion: The outcome for LRM patients in our neuro-ICU suggests they may not require admission to neurologic intensive care. This may provide a measure of neuro-ICU resource use. Improved resource use and reduced costs might be achieved by strategies to provide care for these patients on floors or intermediate care units. This model will need to be validated in other neuro-ICUs and prospectively studied before it can be adopted for triaging admissions to neuro-ICUs.

Sepsis in the Neurologic Intensive Care Unit: Epidemiology and Outcome

Background Sepsis is a major contributor to mortality in patients admitted to a general intensive care unit (ICU). Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is key in improving outcomes. The epidemiology and outcome of sepsis in neurologic ICU (NeuroICU) has not been evaluated. Methods We retrospectively identified all patients admitted to our 16-bed NeuroICU between June 2009 and December 2013 using the acute physiologic and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) outcomes database. We excluded patients admitted with an infection, such as meningitis, encephalitis, brain or spinal abscess, or with any other infection. We compared NeuroICU patients who did to NeuroICU patients who did not develop sepsis after ICU admission. The diagnosis of sepsis was based on the SCCM/ACCP consensus conference definition. Results There were a total of 2,025 patients, out of which 29 patients (1.4%) developed sepsis. Patients who developed sepsis had a trend towards older age (67 ± 13 vs. 61 ± 11 years, P = 0.07), a trend towards more male gender (69.0% vs. 51.5%, P = 0.07), significantly higher APACHE III scores (58 ± 17 vs. 43 ± 21, P = 0.0001), and significantly higher acute physiologic scores (APS) (43 ± 16 vs. 32 ± 18, P = 0.001) than patients who did not develop sepsis. Patients who developed sepsis had higher ICU mortality (41.4% vs. 5.1%, odds ratio (OR) = 13.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 6.1 - 28.2, P < 0.0001), and higher hospital mortality (44.8% vs. 8.2%, OR = 9.0; 95% CI, 4.3 - 19.0, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Sepsis developed in 1.4% of patients admitted to a NeuroICU. Predictors of sepsis development were comorbidities and worsening acute physiologic variables. Patients who developed sepsis had significantly higher mortality. Vigilance to development of sepsis in NeuroICU is paramount, especially in this era when early recognition and intervention of sepsis significantly improves outcomes.

1: A MODEL FOR IDENTIFYING PATIENTS WHO MAY NOT NEED INTENSIVE CARE UNIT ADMISSION

Introduction: Today, critical care in the United States costs more than

ICU PHYSICIANS SHOULD NOT ABANDON THE USE OF ETOMIDATE!: 400

80 billion annually. With an aging population and the growing demand for critical care, it is predicted that the number of staffed intensive care unit (ICU) beds will become increasingly inadequate. Limited resources, intensivi