If septic shock is defined by the SSG as "sepsis-induced hypotension persisting after adequate fluid resuscitation" wouldn't it be correct to say that an initial lactate *4 is still severe sepsis but a lactate *4 AFTER fluid resuscitation is sepsis induced "persistent" hypoperfusion? And, only then it shall be referred to as septic shock?
I'm having a difficult time with the assumption that an initial lactate of *4 with a normal blood pressure and a patient who is alert and oriented x4 is being diagnosed with shock. I do agree that the initial lactate may qualify the patient for the need for fluid resuscitation (if it is sepsis-induced), but not necessarily a diagnosis of shock at this point. Amber Parman RN, BSN, CCRN Denton Regional Medical Center Sepsis Coordinator 940-384-4363 [email protected] [cid:[email protected]] [cid:[email protected]] Enhancing community health through service with compassion, excellence and efficiency. This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of its attachments, please be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all attachments and notify the sender by reply email or contact the sender at the number listed.
_______________________________________________ Sepsisgroups mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sepsisgroups.org/listinfo.cgi/sepsisgroups-sepsisgroups.org
