Fluid Intake in Critically Ill Patients: The "Save Useless Fluids For Intensive Resuscitation" Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients at risk of adverse effects related to positive fluid balance could benefit from fluid intake optimization. Less attention is paid to nonresuscitation fluids. We aim to evaluate the heterogeneity of fluid intake at the initial phase of resuscitation. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Thirty ICUs across France and one in Spain. PATIENTS: Patients requiring vasopressors and/or invasive mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All fluids administered by vascular or enteral lines were recorded over 24 hours following admission and were classified in four main groups according to their predefined indication: fluids having a well-documented homeostasis goal (resuscitation fluids, rehydration, blood products, and nutrition), drug carriers, maintenance fluids, and fluids for technical needs. Models of regression were constructed to determine fluid intake predicted by patient characteristics. Centers were classified according to tertiles of fluid intake. The cohort included 296 patients. The median total volume of fluids was 3546 mL (interquartile range, 2441-4955 mL), with fluids indisputably required for body fluid homeostasis representing 36% of this total. Saline, glucose-containing high chloride crystalloids, and balanced crystalloids represented 43%, 27%, and 16% of total volume, respectively. Whatever the class of fluids, center of inclusion was the strongest factor associated with volumes. Compared with the first tertile, the difference between the volume predicted by patient characteristics and the volume given was +1.2 ± 2.0 L in tertile 2 and +3.0 ± 2.8 L in tertile 3. CONCLUSIONS: Fluids indisputably required for body fluid homeostasis represent the minority of fluid intake during the 24 hours after ICU admission. Center effect is the strongest factor associated with the volume of fluids. Heterogeneity in practices suggests that optimal strategies for volume and goals of common fluids administration need to be developed.

Adverse Events in Intensive Care and Continuing Care Units During Bed-Bath Procedures: The Prospective Observational NURSIng during critical carE (NURSIE) Study.

OBJECTIVES: Standard nursing interventions, especially bed-baths, in ICUs can lead to complications or adverse events defined as a physiologic change that can be life-threatening or that prolongs hospitalization. However, the frequency and type of these adverse events are rarely reported in the literature. The primary objective of our study was to describe the proportion of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event during bed-bath. The secondary objectives were to determine the incidence of each type of serious adverse event and identify risk factors for these serious adverse events. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter observational study. SETTING: Twenty-four ICUs in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. PATIENTS: The patients included in this study had been admitted to an ICU for less than 72 hours and required at least one of the following treatments: invasive ventilation, vasopressors, noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy. Serious adverse events were defined as cardiac arrest, accidental extubation, desaturation and/or mucus plugging/inhalation, hypotension and/or arrhythmia and/or agitation requiring therapeutic intervention, acute pain, accidental disconnection or dysfunction of equipment, and patient fall requiring additional assistance. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study included 253 patients from May 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018 in 24 ICUs, representing 1,529 nursing procedures. The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 54 ± 19. Nursing care was administered by an average of 2 ± 1 caregivers and lasted between 11 and 20 minutes. Of the 253 patients included, 142 (56%) experienced at least one serious adverse event. Of the 1,529 nursing procedures, 295 (19%) were complicated by at least one serious adverse event. In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with serious adverse event were as follows: presence of a specific protocol (p = 0.011); tracheostomy (p = 0.032); administration of opioids (p = 0.007); presence of a physician (p = 0.0004); duration of nursing care between 6 and 10 minutes (p = 0.003), duration of nursing care between 11 and 20 minutes (p = 0.005), duration of nursing care greater than 40 minutes (p = 0.04) with a reference duration of nursing care between 20 and 40 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse events were observed in one-half of patients and concerned one-fifth of nurses, confirming the need for caution. Further studies are needed to test systematic serious adverse event prevention strategies.