USER Protocol as a Guide to Resuscitation of the Patient with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department
Received 29 October 2020
Accepted for publication 14 December 2020
Published 12 February 2021 Volume 2021:13 Pages 33—43
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Hans-Christoph Pape
German Devia Jaramillo,1 Salvador Menendez Ramirez2
1Resuscitation Unit, Hospital Universitario Mayor Méderi; Department of Emergency Medicine-Internal Medicine, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia; 2Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia
Correspondence: German Devia Jaramillo
Hospital Universitario Mayor Méderi, Cra. 24 No. 29-45 Research Office, Bogota, 111411, Colombia
Tel +571 5600520 ext 3961-3987
Introduction: Sepsis is a disease that is still associated with high mortality, in which timely interventions are related to better results.
Objective: To determine if there is a difference in in-hospital mortality, fluid balances, norepinephrine initiation and recovery time of blood pressure, when comparing the resuscitation of the patient who is admitted to the emergency room in septic shock by applying the ultrasound protocol (USER) versus the standard of care.
Patients and Methods: This is a prospective, cohort study conducted in the emergency room of a highly complex hospital of patients with septic shock.
Results: 83 patients recruited in total. The groups were comparable in demographics, mean baseline blood pressure, disease severity given by the SOFA value, and arterial lactate. A statistically significant difference was documented in the fluid balances at 4 hours, median 1325mL (IQR:451– 2455mL) in Group C versus 900mL (IQR:440– 1292) in Group U (p=0.048) and at 6 hours, median 1658mL (IQR:610– 2925mL) versus 1107mL (IQR:600– 1500mL), p=0.026, as well as in the total fluid balance of hospital stay, median 14,564mL (IQR:8660– 18,705mL) versus 8660mL (IQR:5309– 16,974mL), p=0.049. On the other hand, in the USER Group, the mean blood pressure ≥ 65mmHg was achieved in 97.4% of the patients 4 hours after the start of the protocol versus 50% in Group C (p=< 0.001). Mortality with the use of the protocol compared with conventional therapy was (56.4% vs 61.36%, p=0.647).
Conclusion: The use of the USER protocol in patients with septic shock in the emergency room showed lower fluid balances at 4 and 6 hours, and of the total hospital stay, as well as earlier initiation of norepinephrine and statistically significant faster improvement in blood pressure. Although a statistically significant difference was not found in the days of ICU stay, hospitalization and in-hospital mortality, a trend was observed in the reduction of these parameters.
Keywords: septic shock, emergency medicine, resuscitation, bedside ultrasound, fluid responsiveness, passive leg raising, goal-directed therapy, Doppler snuffbox resistance index
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]