About Cook County Health and Hospital System, 1950 W Polk St, Chicago

Cook County Health and Hospital System, 1950 W Polk St, Chicago

Articles by Cook County Health and Hospital System, 1950 W Polk St, Chicago

Aggressive hydration in early resuscitation phase does not provide mortality benefit in acute pancreatitis

Published on: 5th December, 2019

OCLC Number/Unique Identifier: 8457482467

Introduction: Fluid management is the cornerstone of treatment for acute pancreatitis (AP), but the proper rate and volume is still controversial. We aim to evaluate the role of aggressive hydration in AP patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed 279 hospitalized patients of AP. Severity was determined by the Revised Atlanta classification; validated clinical scores were also calculated based on clinical information upon presentation. We extracted amount of fluid received by at 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours after presentation. Aggressive hydration was defined as amount higher than 10 ml/kg bolus followed by infusion at 1.5 ml/kg/h. After direct comparison between aggressive versus non-aggressive hydration groups, propensity-score match was performed to control severity, APACHE II and BISAP score. Post-match comparison as well as a subgroup comparison were conducted. Results: At 24 hours, 125 (44.8%) patients received aggressive hydration averaged at 5.1 L (2-18 L), while 154 (55.2%) patients received non-aggressive hydration averaged at 2.5 L. Post-match comparison showed that aggressive hydration group had longer hospital stay (MAP: 5.3 vs 4.5, p = 0.145, MSAP/SAP: 8.3 vs 4.8 d, p = 0.007), and higher rate of intensive care unit admission (mild: 12.9% vs 4.4%, p = 0.042, moderately severe or severe: 36.8% vs 3.1%, p = 0.001), while showed no difference in rate of mortality or re-admission by 1 year. In patients who presented without organ failure, aggressive hydration did not change the rate of development of organ failure (14.1% vs 12.5%, p = 0.731), but the aggressive hydration group had a trend towards longer hospital stay (5.5 vs 4.6 d, p = 0.083) and higher rate of MICU admission (12.1% vs 4.8%, p = 0.051)
Cite this ArticleCrossMarkPublonsHarvard Library HOLLISGrowKudosResearchGateBase SearchOAI PMHAcademic MicrosoftScilitSemantic ScholarUniversite de ParisUW LibrariesSJSU King LibrarySJSU King LibraryNUS LibraryMcGillDET KGL BIBLiOTEKJCU DiscoveryUniversidad De LimaWorldCatVU on WorldCat