Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, cilt.68, sa.9, ss.1234-1243, 2024 (SCI-Expanded)
Introduction: Use of albumin is suggested for some patients with shock, but preferences for its use may vary among intensive care unit (ICU) physicians. Methods: We conducted an international online survey of ICU physicians with 20 questions about their use of albumin and their opinion towards a randomised trial among adults with shock comparing the use versus no use of albumin. Results: A total of 1248 respondents participated, with a mean response rate of 37%, ranging from 18% to 75% across 21 countries. Respondents mainly worked in mixed ICUs and 92% were specialists in intensive care medicine. The reported use of albumin in general shock varied as 18% reported ‘almost never’, 22% ‘rarely’, 34% ‘occasionally’, 22% ‘frequently’ and 4% ‘almost always’ using albumin. In septic shock, 19% reported ‘almost never’, 22% ‘rarely’, 29% ‘occasionally’, 22% ‘frequently’ and 7% ‘almost always’ using albumin. Physicians’ preferences were more consistent for haemorrhagic- and cardiogenic shock, with more than 45% reporting ‘almost never’ using albumin. While the reported use of albumin for other purposes than resuscitation was infrequent (40%–85% reported ‘almost never’ for five other indications), the most frequent other indications were low serum albumin levels and improvement of the efficacy of diuretics. Most respondents (93%) would randomise adult ICU patients with shock to a trial of albumin versus no albumin. Conclusions: In this international survey, the reported preferences for the use of albumin in adult ICU patients with shock varied considerably among surveyed ICU physicians. The support for a future randomised trial was high.