Fluid resuscitation practice patterns in intensive care units of the USA: a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone of intensive care treatment, yet there is a lack of agreement on how various types of fluids should be used in critically ill patients with different disease states. Therefore, our goal was to investigate the practice patterns of fluid utilization for resuscitation of adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) within the USA. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 502 physicians practicing in medical and surgical ICUs. Survey questions were designed to assess clinical decision-making processes for 3 types of patients who need volume expansion: (1) not bleeding and not septic, (2) bleeding but not septic, (3) requiring resuscitation for sepsis. First-choice fluid used in fluid boluses for these 3 patient types was requested from the respondents. Descriptive statistics were performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test to evaluate differences among the physician groups. Follow-up tests, including t tests, were conducted to evaluate differences between ICU types, hospital settings, and bolus volume. RESULTS: Fluid resuscitation varied with respect to preferences for the factors to determine volume status and preferences for fluid types. The 3 most frequently preferred volume indicators were blood pressure, urine output, and central venous pressure. Regardless of the patient type, the most preferred fluid type was crystalloid, followed by 5 % albumin and then 6 % hydroxyethyl starches (HES) 450/0.70 and 6 % HES 600/0.75. Surprisingly, up to 10 % of physicians still chose HES as the first choice of fluid for resuscitation in sepsis. The clinical specialty and the practice setting of the treating physicians also influenced fluid choices. CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns of fluid resuscitation varied in the USA, depending on patient characteristics, clinical specialties, and practice settings of the treating physicians.

Ghrelin suppresses glucose-stimulated insulin secretion and deteriorates glucose tolerance in healthy humans.

OBJECTIVE: The orexigenic gut hormone ghrelin and its receptor are present in pancreatic islets. Although ghrelin reduces insulin secretion in rodents, its effect on insulin secretion in humans has not been established. The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that circulating ghrelin suppresses glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ghrelin (0.3, 0.9 and 1.5 nmol/kg/h) or saline was infused for more than 65 min in 12 healthy patients (8 male/4 female) on 4 separate occasions in a counterbalanced fashion. An intravenous glucose tolerance test was performed during steady state plasma ghrelin levels. The acute insulin response to intravenous glucose (AIRg) was calculated from plasma insulin concentrations between 2 and 10 min after the glucose bolus. Intravenous glucose tolerance was measured as the glucose disappearance constant (Kg) from 10 to 30 min. RESULTS: The three ghrelin infusions raised plasma total ghrelin concentrations to 4-, 15-, and 23-fold above the fasting level, respectively. Ghrelin infusion did not alter fasting plasma insulin or glucose, but compared with saline, the 0.3, 0.9, and 1.5 nmol/kg/h doses decreased AIRg (2,152 +/- 448 vs. 1,478 +/- 2,889, 1,419 +/- 275, and 1,120 +/- 174 pmol/l) and Kg (0.3 and 1.5 nmol/kg/h doses only) significantly (P < 0.05 for all). Ghrelin infusion raised plasma growth hormone and serum cortisol concentrations significantly (P < 0.001 for both), but had no effect on glucagon, epinephrine, or norepinephrine levels (P = 0.44, 0.74, and 0.48, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is a robust proof-of-concept study showing that exogenous ghrelin reduces glucose-stimulated insulin secretion and glucose disappearance in healthy humans. Our findings raise the possibility that endogenous ghrelin has a role in physiologic insulin secretion, and that ghrelin antagonists could improve beta-cell function.