Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
IRIS
Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that choice of fluid used for resuscitation may influence mortality in
critically ill patients.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units across 25 countries to describe the
types of fluids administered during resuscitation episodes. We used generalized estimating equations to examine
the association between patient, prescriber and geographic factors and the type of fluid administered (classified as
crystalloid, colloid or blood products).
Results: During the 24-hour study period, 1,955 of 5,274 (37.1%) patients received resuscitation fluid during 4,488
resuscitation episodes. The main indications for administering crystalloid or colloid were impaired perfusion (1,526/
3,419 (44.6%) of episodes), or to correct abnormal vital signs (1,189/3,419 (34.8%)). Overall, colloid was administered
to more patients (1,234 (23.4%) versus 782 (14.8%)) and during more episodes (2,173 (48.4%) versus 1,468 (32.7%))
than crystalloid. After adjusting for patient and prescriber characteristics, practice varied significantly between
countries with country being a strong independent determinant of the type of fluid prescribed. Compared to
Canada where crystalloid, colloid and blood products were administered in 35.5%, 40.6% and 28.3% of resuscitation
episodes respectively, odds ratios for the prescription of crystalloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were
0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.69), 0.18 (0.10 to 0.32) and 3.43 (1.71 to 6.84) respectively; odds ratios
for the prescription of colloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 1.72 (1.20 to 2.47), 4.72 (2.99 to 7.44)
and 0.39 (0.21 to 0.74) respectively. In contrast, choice of fluid was not influenced by measures of illness severity
(for example, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score).
Conclusions: Administration of resuscitation fluid is a common intervention in intensive care units and choice of
fluid varies markedly between countries. Although colloid solutions are more expensive and may possibly be
harmful in some patients, they were administered to more patients and during more resuscitation episodes than
crystalloids were.
Resuscitation fluid use in critically ill adults: an international cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units
Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that choice of fluid used for resuscitation may influence mortality in
critically ill patients.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units across 25 countries to describe the
types of fluids administered during resuscitation episodes. We used generalized estimating equations to examine
the association between patient, prescriber and geographic factors and the type of fluid administered (classified as
crystalloid, colloid or blood products).
Results: During the 24-hour study period, 1,955 of 5,274 (37.1%) patients received resuscitation fluid during 4,488
resuscitation episodes. The main indications for administering crystalloid or colloid were impaired perfusion (1,526/
3,419 (44.6%) of episodes), or to correct abnormal vital signs (1,189/3,419 (34.8%)). Overall, colloid was administered
to more patients (1,234 (23.4%) versus 782 (14.8%)) and during more episodes (2,173 (48.4%) versus 1,468 (32.7%))
than crystalloid. After adjusting for patient and prescriber characteristics, practice varied significantly between
countries with country being a strong independent determinant of the type of fluid prescribed. Compared to
Canada where crystalloid, colloid and blood products were administered in 35.5%, 40.6% and 28.3% of resuscitation
episodes respectively, odds ratios for the prescription of crystalloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were
0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.69), 0.18 (0.10 to 0.32) and 3.43 (1.71 to 6.84) respectively; odds ratios
for the prescription of colloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 1.72 (1.20 to 2.47), 4.72 (2.99 to 7.44)
and 0.39 (0.21 to 0.74) respectively. In contrast, choice of fluid was not influenced by measures of illness severity
(for example, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score).
Conclusions: Administration of resuscitation fluid is a common intervention in intensive care units and choice of
fluid varies markedly between countries. Although colloid solutions are more expensive and may possibly be
harmful in some patients, they were administered to more patients and during more resuscitation episodes than
crystalloids were.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/1905023
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
Citazioni
92
335
297
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.