Back to Journals » Open Access Emergency Medicine » Volume 10

Potential mortality and cost reduction in adult severe sepsis and septic shock through the use of an innovative fluid delivery device

Authors Brooks EA, Piehl M

Received 25 May 2018

Accepted for publication 10 August 2018

Published 26 October 2018 Volume 2018:10 Pages 165—170

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S175302

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Dr Hans-Christoph Pape


Elizabeth A Brooks,1 Mark Piehl2–4

1Health Economics, TTi Health Research and Economics, Hampstead, MD, USA; 2410 Medical, Durham, NC, USA; 3Pediatric Critical Care, WakeMed Children’s Hospital, Raleigh, NC, USA; 4Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Background: While early fluid resuscitation has been shown to significantly improve health and economic metrics in septic shock, providers are often unable to achieve fluid delivery guidelines using current techniques.
Purpose: To examine expected clinical and economic consequences of more consistent achievement of fluid resuscitation guidelines through use of a novel fluid delivery technology.
Patients and methods: A decision analytic model was developed to compare expected costs and outcomes associated with the standard technique vs a novel, faster technique for rapid fluid resuscitation in adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.
Results: Use of an innovative fluid delivery device (LifeFlow) resulted in lower expected mortality compared to standard intravenous fluid delivery methods (reduction of 10 fewer deaths per 500 cases). Compared to standard methods, use of the innovative rapid fluid delivery device also resulted in lower expected hospital costs (US$1,569,131 cost reduction per 500 cases), a lower required use of mechanical ventilation (24% vs 31%), decreased average length of stay (11 vs 13 days), decreased average intensive care unit length of stay (2 vs 3 days), and decreased use of vasopressors (17% vs 21%). A sensitivity analysis showed that utilization of the rapid fluid delivery device is more cost-effective than standard methods, even under the most conservative assumptions.
Conclusion: Based on existing data supporting the importance of early, controlled fluid resuscitation in septic shock patients, the analytical model developed in this study demonstrated the benefit of a novel device that facilitates earlier fluid bolus completion and better adherence to sepsis bundles.

Keywords: sepsis syndrome, sepsis bundles, fluid administration, surviving sepsis campaign, resuscitation

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]