Park, John

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify factors affecting physicians’ cognition and clinical behavior when evaluating patients that may need fluid therapy. BACKGROUND: Proponents of dynamic fluid responsiveness testing advocate measuring cardiac output or stroke volume after a maneuver to prove that further fluids will increase cardiac output. However, surveys suggest that fluid therapy in clinical practice is often given without prior responsiveness testing. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of face-to-face structured interviews. SETTING: ICUs and medical-surgical wards in acute care hospitals. SUBJECTS: Intensivists and hospitalist physicians. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We conducted 43 interviews with experienced physicians in 19 hospitals. Hospitalized patients with hypotension, tachycardia, oliguria, or elevated serum lactate are commonly seen by physicians who weigh the risks and benefits of more fluid therapy. Encounters are often with unfamiliar patients and evaluation and decisions are completed quickly without involving other physicians. Dynamic testing for fluid responsiveness is used much less often than static methods and fluid boluses are often ordered with no testing at all. This approach is rationalized by factors that discourage dynamic testing: unavailability of equipment, time to obtain test results, or lack of expertise in obtaining valid data. Two mental calculations are particularly influential: physicians’ estimate of the base rate of fluid responsiveness (determined by physical examination, chart review, and previous responses to fluid boluses) and physicians’ perception of patient harm if 500 or 1,000 mL fluid boluses are ordered. When the perception of harm is low, physicians use heuristics that rationalize skipping dynamic testing. LIMITATIONS: Geographic limitation to hospitals in Minnesota, United States. CONCLUSIONS: If dynamic responsiveness testing is to be used more often in routine clinical practice, physicians must be more convinced of the benefits of dynamic testing, that they can obtain valid results quickly and believe that even small fluid boluses harm their patients.

Objectives: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly recognized as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) in critical care, yet the data regarding the safety and feasibility of this choice in septic shock management is growing but still lacking. In this study, we aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and impact on outcomes of using dedicated vascular access specialist (VAS) teams to insert PICCs versus CICCs on patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Mayo Clinic Rochester Medical ICU and Mayo Clinic Arizona Multidisciplinary ICU from 2013 to 2016. Patients: All adult patients hospitalized with diagnosis of septic shock excluding patients who declined authorization for review of their medical records, mixed shock states, and readmissions. Interventions: None. Measurement and main results: Comprehensive data regarding septic shock diagnosis and resuscitation were abstracted from electronic medical records. A total of 562 patients with septic shock were included in the study; 215 patients were resuscitated utilizing a PICC and 347 were resuscitated using a CICC. On univariate analysis, the time to central line insertion and time to vasopressor initiation were found to be reduced in those who received PICC at time of ICU admission versus CICC. Other favorable outcomes were also observed in those who received PICC versus CICC including shorter ICU length of stay and lower unadjusted hospital mortality. A multivariable analysis for hospital mortality showed that after adjusting for important covariates, neither the time to central line insertion nor the time to vasopressor initiation was associated with a lower hospital mortality. Conclusions: Across two tertiary referral centers within the same enterprise, use of a dedicated VAS team for insertion of PICCs for initial resuscitation in patients with septic shock was feasible and associated with shorter time to central venous access and initiation of vasopressors; however, adjusted hospital mortality was not different between the two groups.

Despite knowledge that EGDT improves outcomes in septic patients, staff education on EGDT and compliance with the CPOE order set has been variable. Based on results of a resident survey to identify barriers to decrease severe sepsis/septic shock mortality in the medical intensive care unit (MICU), multifaceted interventions such as educational interventions to improve awareness to the importance of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), and the use of the Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) order set, were implemented in July 2013. CPOE order set was established to improve compliance with the EGDT resuscitation bundle elements. Orders were reviewed and compared for patients admitted to the MICU with severe sepsis/septic shock in July and August 2013 (controls) and 2014 (following the intervention). Similarly, educational slide sets were used as interventions for residents before the start of their ICU rotations in July and August 2013. While CPOE order set compliance did not significantly improve (78% vs. 76%, p = 0.74), overall EGDT adherence improved from 43% to 68% ( p = 0.0295). Although there was a trend toward improved mortality, this did not reach statistical significance. This study shows that education interventions can be used to increase awareness of severe sepsis/septic shock and improve overall EGDT adherence.