Vizzini, Michael R.

IMPORTANCE: Aggressive fluid resuscitation remains a cornerstone of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines, but there is growing controversy regarding the recommended 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosage. It is contended that, in selected patients, this volume confers an increased risk of volume overload without either concomitant benefit or strong evidence in support of the recommended IV fluid dosage. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of practice patterns and their impact on patient outcomes following the surviving sepsis guidelines for fluid resuscitation. DESIGN: Large, multisite retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The retrospective study included all adult patients who presented to the emergency department at one of 19 different Mayo Clinic sites throughout the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest from August 2018 to November 2020 with suspected sepsis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Eight-thousand four-hundred fourteen patients suspected to have sepsis were assessed regarding fluid resuscitation and outcomes among patients receiving 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosing compared with patients who did not. Patient demographics and clinical information were collected via electronic health records. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who received 0–29.9 mL/kg of IV fluid and those who received 30.0+ mL/kg of IV fluid. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of fluid dose on in-hospital death, 30-day mortality, ICU admission after diagnosis, dialysis initiation after diagnosis, ventilator use, vasopressor use, as well as ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: We observed lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality risk in the 30+ mL/kg dosing group. Increased fluid dosage did, however, carry a much greater chance of ICU admission. Most patients (72% after propensity score weighting) in our population received less than 30 mL/kg fluid (based on ideal body weight). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: IV fluid dosing for sepsis resuscitation greater than 30 mL/kg was associated with decreased risk of in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and reduced risk of requiring mechanical ventilation. Our data does ultimately seem to support the SSC recommendation.

AbstractOutcomes have improved considerably in multiple myeloma (MM), but disparities among racial‐ethnic groups exist. Differences in utilization of novel therapeutics are likely contributing factors. We explored such differences from the SEER‐Medicare database. A utilization analysis of lenalidomide, thalidomide, bortezomib, and stem cell transplant (SCT) was performed for patients diagnosed with MM between 2007 and 2009, including use over time, use by race, time‐dependent trends for each racial subgroup, and survival analysis. A total of 5338 MM patients were included with median 2.4‐year follow‐up. Within the first year of MM diagnosis, utilization of lenalidomide, bortezomib, SCT, and more than one novel agent increased over time while utilization of thalidomide decreased. There was significantly lower utilization of lenalidomide among African‐Americans (P < 0.01), higher thalidomide use among Hispanics and Asians (P < 0.01), and lower bortezomib use among Asians (P < 0.01). Hispanics had the highest median number of days to first dose of bortezomib (P = 0.02) and the lowest utilization of SCT (P < 0.01). Hispanics and Asians were the only groups without notable increases in lenalidomide and bortezomib use, respectively. SCT utilization increased over time for all except African‐Americans. SCT use within the first year after diagnosis was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.4–0.68), while bortezomib use was associated with inferior survival (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.02–1.28). We noted considerable variability in MM therapeutics utilization with seeming inequity for racial‐ethnic minorities. These trends should be considered to eliminate drug access and utilization disparities and achieve equitable benefit of therapeutic advances across all races.