Display options
Cite
Kabil G, Frost SA, Hatcher D, et al. Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. BMC Emerg Med. 2022;22(1):3doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5.
Kabil, G., Frost, S. A., Hatcher, D., Shetty, A., Foster, J., & McNally, S. (2022). Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. BMC emergency medicine, 22(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5
Kabil, Gladis, et al. "Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis." BMC emergency medicine vol. 22,1 (2022): 3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5
Kabil G, Frost SA, Hatcher D, Shetty A, Foster J, McNally S. Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. BMC Emerg Med. 2022 Jan 11;22(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5. PMID: 35016638; PMCID: PMC8753824.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Emerg Med. 2022 Jan 11;22(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5.

Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

BMC emergency medicine

Gladis Kabil, Steven A Frost, Deborah Hatcher, Amith Shetty, Jann Foster, Stephen McNally

Affiliations

  1. Western Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Locked bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia. [email protected].
  2. Department of Emergency, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. [email protected].
  3. Western Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Locked bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
  4. South Western Sydney Nursing and Midwifery Research, Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, Sydney, Australia.
  5. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
  6. Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, Australia.
  7. NSW Ministry of Health, New South Wales, Australia.

PMID: 35016638 PMCID: PMC8753824 DOI: 10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Early intravenous fluids for patients with sepsis presenting with hypoperfusion or shock in the emergency department remains one of the key recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to reduce mortality. However, compliance with the recommendation remains poor. While several interventions have been implemented to improve early fluid administration as part of sepsis protocols, the extent to which they have improved compliance with fluid resuscitation is unknown. The factors associated with the lack of compliance are also poorly understood.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in emergency departments in improving compliance with early fluid administration and examine the non-interventional facilitators and barriers that may influence appropriate fluid administration in adults with sepsis. We searched MEDLINE Ovid/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases for studies of any design to April 2021. We synthesised results from the studies reporting effectiveness of interventions in a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis of studies reporting non-interventional factors.

RESULTS: We included 31 studies out of the 825 unique articles identified in the systematic review of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis and 11 in the narrative synthesis. In meta-analysis, interventions were associated with a 47% improvement in the rate of compliance [(Random Effects (RE) Relative Risk (RR) = 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.25-1.74, p-value < 0.01)]; an average 24 min reduction in the time to fluids [RE mean difference = - 24.11(95% CI - 14.09 to - 34.14 min, p value < 0.01)], and patients receiving an additional 575 mL fluids [RE mean difference = 575.40 (95% CI 202.28-1353.08, p value < 0.01)]. The compliance rate of early fluid administration reported in the studies included in the narrative synthesis is 48% [RR = 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.72)].

CONCLUSION: Performance improvement interventions improve compliance and time and volume of fluids administered to patients with sepsis in the emergency department. While patient-related factors such as advanced age, co-morbidities, cryptic shock were associated with poor compliance, important organisational factors such as inexperience of clinicians, overcrowding and inter-hospital transfers were also identified. A comprehensive understanding of the facilitators and barriers to early fluid administration is essential to design quality improvement projects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42021225417.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Keywords: Barriers; Compliance; Facilitators; Fluid therapy; Sepsis

References

  1. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Jan;34(1):1-9 - PubMed
  2. BMC Emerg Med. 2017 Aug 30;17(1):27 - PubMed
  3. Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50 - PubMed
  4. Crit Care. 2013 Oct 06;17(5):R224 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535 - PubMed
  6. Intensive Care Med. 2017 May;43(5):625-632 - PubMed
  7. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Apr;24(3):202-208 - PubMed
  8. Shock. 2012 May;37(5):463-7 - PubMed
  9. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1368-77 - PubMed
  10. Med J Aust. 2016 Feb 1;204(2):73 - PubMed
  11. J Crit Care. 2019 Jun;51:94-98 - PubMed
  12. J Crit Care. 2017 Apr;38:35-40 - PubMed
  13. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2017 Aug;41:90-97 - PubMed
  14. Res Synth Methods. 2020 Sep;11(5):641-654 - PubMed
  15. Ann Pharmacother. 2018 Mar;52(3):240-245 - PubMed
  16. J Intensive Care Med. 2018 Feb;33(2):111-115 - PubMed
  17. J Emerg Nurs. 2018 Nov;44(6):552-562 - PubMed
  18. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Dec 1;30(10):802-809 - PubMed
  19. JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10 - PubMed
  20. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019 Nov;22(4):153-160 - PubMed
  21. Chest. 2018 Jan;153(1):39-45 - PubMed
  22. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1785-1805 - PubMed
  23. JAMA. 2014 Apr 2;311(13):1308-16 - PubMed
  24. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Dec;6(12):1039-1053 - PubMed
  25. Am J Med Qual. 2017 Sep/Oct;32(5):500-507 - PubMed
  26. N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377(5):414-417 - PubMed
  27. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017 Sep 19;25(1):96 - PubMed
  28. J Emerg Nurs. 2020 Jan;46(1):91-98 - PubMed
  29. PLoS One. 2015 May 06;10(5):e0125827 - PubMed
  30. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135 - PubMed
  31. Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7;24(1):137 - PubMed
  32. JAMA. 2017 Oct 3;318(13):1233-1240 - PubMed
  33. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jul;35(7):953-960 - PubMed
  34. J Emerg Med. 2013 Mar;44(3):698-708 - PubMed
  35. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2020 Sep;49(9):661-668 - PubMed
  36. J Crit Care. 2013 Apr;28(2):148-51 - PubMed
  37. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 May;102(5):817-841 - PubMed
  38. Int Emerg Nurs. 2008 Oct;16(4):250-6 - PubMed
  39. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 - PubMed
  40. Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;68(3):298-311 - PubMed
  41. Shock. 2012 Nov;38(5):474-9 - PubMed
  42. Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247 - PubMed
  43. Emerg Med J. 2017 Sep;34(9):578-585 - PubMed
  44. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Apr;37(4):762-763 - PubMed
  45. Lung. 2011 Feb;189(1):11-9 - PubMed
  46. Emerg Med J. 2013 May;30(5):397-401 - PubMed
  47. Int J Clin Pract. 2012 Jul;66(7):705-10 - PubMed
  48. Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377 - PubMed
  49. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 May;38(5):879-882 - PubMed
  50. J Emerg Nurs. 2015 Mar;41(2):130-7 - PubMed
  51. J Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;44(4):735-41 - PubMed
  52. Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Sep;32(9):1120-4 - PubMed
  53. Crit Care Med. 2015 Dec;43(12):2589-96 - PubMed
  54. BMC Emerg Med. 2017 Mar 23;17(1):11 - PubMed
  55. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Oct 15;65(8):1253-1259 - PubMed
  56. CJEM. 2017 Mar;19(2):112-121 - PubMed
  57. Australas Emerg Care. 2021 Mar;24(1):67-72 - PubMed
  58. J Thorac Dis. 2020 Feb;12(Suppl 1):S37-S47 - PubMed

Publication Types