Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
USER Protocol as a Guide to Resuscitation of the Patient with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department.
Devia Jaramillo, German; Menendez Ramirez, Salvador.
Afiliação
  • Devia Jaramillo G; Resuscitation Unit, Hospital Universitario Mayor Méderi; Department of Emergency Medicine-Internal Medicine, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Menendez Ramirez S; Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia.
Open Access Emerg Med ; 13: 33-43, 2021.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33603505
INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a disease that is still associated with high mortality, in which timely interventions are related to better results. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in in-hospital mortality, fluid balances, norepinephrine initiation and recovery time of blood pressure, when comparing the resuscitation of the patient who is admitted to the emergency room in septic shock by applying the ultrasound protocol (USER) versus the standard of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, cohort study conducted in the emergency room of a highly complex hospital of patients with septic shock. RESULTS: 83 patients recruited in total. The groups were comparable in demographics, mean baseline blood pressure, disease severity given by the SOFA value, and arterial lactate. A statistically significant difference was documented in the fluid balances at 4 hours, median 1325mL (IQR:451-2455mL) in Group C versus 900mL (IQR:440-1292) in Group U (p=0.048) and at 6 hours, median 1658mL (IQR:610-2925mL) versus 1107mL (IQR:600-1500mL), p=0.026, as well as in the total fluid balance of hospital stay, median 14,564mL (IQR:8660-18,705mL) versus 8660mL (IQR:5309-16,974mL), p=0.049. On the other hand, in the USER Group, the mean blood pressure ≥ 65mmHg was achieved in 97.4% of the patients 4 hours after the start of the protocol versus 50% in Group C (p=<0.001). Mortality with the use of the protocol compared with conventional therapy was (56.4% vs 61.36%, p=0.647). CONCLUSION: The use of the USER protocol in patients with septic shock in the emergency room showed lower fluid balances at 4 and 6 hours, and of the total hospital stay, as well as earlier initiation of norepinephrine and statistically significant faster improvement in blood pressure. Although a statistically significant difference was not found in the days of ICU stay, hospitalization and in-hospital mortality, a trend was observed in the reduction of these parameters.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: Open Access Emerg Med Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Colômbia País de publicação: Nova Zelândia

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Revista: Open Access Emerg Med Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Colômbia País de publicação: Nova Zelândia