RESUMO
In this review, we aimed to comprehensively summarize current literature on pathophysiology, relevance, diagnosis and treatment of fluid accumulation in patients with sepsis/septic shock. Fluid accumulation syndrome (FAS) is defined as fluid accumulation (any degree, expressed as percentage from baseline body weight) with new onset organ-failure. Over the years, many studies have described the negative impact of FAS on clinically relevant outcomes. While the relationship between FAS and ICU outcomes is well described, uncertainty exists regarding its diagnosis, monitoring and treatment. A stepwise approach is suggested to prevent and treat FAS in patients with septic shock, including minimizing fluid intake (e.g., by limiting intravenous fluid administration and employing de-escalation whenever possible), limiting sodium and chloride administration, and maximizing fluid output (e.g., with diuretics, or renal replacement therapy). Current literature implies the need for a multi-tier, multi-modal approach to de-resuscitation, combining a restrictive fluid management regime with a standardized early active de-resuscitation, maintenance fluid reduction (avoiding fluid creep) and potentially using physical measures such as compression stockings.Trial registration: Not applicable.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The physical and economic toll of cancer make it a high health priority. The rising cost of cancer care is now a primary focus for patients, payers, and providers. Escalating costs of clinical trials and national drug regulations have led the median monthly costs of cancer drugs to rise from less than $100 in 1965 to 1969, to more than $5000 in 2005 to 2009, stressing the importance of finding innovative ways to reduce cost burden. In the present study, we report the economic evaluation of an individualized exercise oncology program beginning early after diagnosis. METHODS: An independent research group, ASCEND Innovations, retrospectively analyzed patient records to statistically demonstrate the impact of exercise oncology during cancer treatment. All patients completed 12 weeks of prescribed, individualized exercise that included cardiovascular, strength training, and flexibility components. The 3 primary hospital measures leveraged for statistical comparison before and after supportive care enrollment were number of encounters, number of readmissions, and average total charges, as well as emergency room visits and length of hospital stay ( P < .05). RESULTS: The resulting dataset consisted of 1493 total hospital encounters for 147 unique patients. The results statistically demonstrate a positive effect of exercise oncology during cancer care, in terms of reductions in overall cost per patient pre- to post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized exercise oncology programs should be employed as part of the national standard of care for individuals battling cancer, in order to improve patient outcome and reduce cost burden.
