Explore the vast range of titles available.

This trial comparing treatment strategies that emphasized the use of vasopressors or intravenous fluids for early treatment of sepsis-induced hypotension showed no difference in 90-day mortality before discharge home.

Background Fluid boluses are administered to septic shock patients with the purpose of increasing cardiac output as a means to restore tissue perfusion. Unfortunately, fluid therapy has a narrow therapeutic index, and therefore, several approaches to increase safety have been proposed. Fluid responsiveness (FR) assessment might predict which patients will effectively increase cardiac output after a fluid bolus (FR+), thus preventing potentially harmful fluid administration in non-fluid responsive (FR−) patients. However, there are scarce data on the impact of assessing FR on major outcomes. The recent ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial included systematic per-protocol assessment of FR. We performed a post hoc analysis of the study dataset with the aim of exploring the relationship between FR status at baseline, attainment of specific targets, and clinically relevant outcomes. Methods ANDROMEDA-SHOCK compared the effect of peripheral perfusion- vs. lactate-targeted resuscitation on 28-day mortality. FR was assessed before each fluid bolus and periodically thereafter. FR+ and FR− subgroups, independent of the original randomization, were compared for fluid administration, achievement of resuscitation targets, vasoactive agents use, and major outcomes such as organ dysfunction and support, length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Results FR could be determined in 348 patients at baseline. Two hundred and forty-two patients (70%) were categorized as fluid responders. Both groups achieved comparable successful resuscitation targets, although non-fluid responders received less resuscitation fluids (0 [0–500] vs. 1500 [1000–2500] mL; p 0.0001), exhibited less positive fluid balances, but received more vasopressor testing. No difference in clinically relevant outcomes between FR+ and FR− patients was found, including 24-h SOFA score (9 [5–12] vs. 8 [5–11], p  = 0.4), need for MV (78% vs. 72%, p  = 0.16), need for RRT (18% vs. 21%, p  = 0.7), ICU-LOS (6 [3–11] vs. 6 [3–16] days, p  = 0.2), and 28-day mortality (40% vs. 36%, p  = 0.5). Only thirteen patients remained fluid responsive along the intervention period. Conclusions Systematic assessment allowed determination of fluid responsiveness status in more than 80% of patients with early septic shock. Fluid boluses could be stopped in non-fluid responsive patients without any negative impact on clinical relevant outcomes. Our results suggest that fluid resuscitation might be safely guided by FR assessment in septic shock patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03078712 . Registered retrospectively on March 13, 2017.

Background Crystalloids and different component colloids, used for volume resuscitation, are sometimes associated with various adverse effects. Clinical trial findings for such fluid types in different patients’ conditions are conflicting. Whether the mortality benefit of balanced crystalloid than saline can be inferred from sepsis to other patient group is uncertain, and adverse effect profile is not comprehensive. This study aims to compare the survival benefits and adverse effects of seven fluid types with network meta-analysis in sepsis, surgical, trauma, and traumatic brain injury patients. Methods Searched databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and reference lists of relevant articles occurred from inception until January 2020. Studies on critically ill adults requiring fluid resuscitation were included. Intervention studies reported on balanced crystalloid, saline, iso-oncotic albumin, hyperoncotic albumin, low molecular weight hydroxyethyl starch (L-HES), high molecular weight HES, and gelatin. Network meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects model to calculate odds ratio (OR) and mean difference. Risk of Bias tool 2.0 was used to assess bias. Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) web application was used to rate confidence in synthetic evidence. Results Fifty-eight trials ( n  = 26,351 patients) were identified. Seven fluid types were evaluated. Among patients with sepsis and surgery, balanced crystalloids and albumin achieved better survival, fewer acute kidney injury, and smaller blood transfusion volumes than saline and L-HES. In those with sepsis, balanced crystalloids significantly reduced mortality more than saline (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.95) and L-HES (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69–0.95) and reduced acute kidney injury more than L-HES (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65–0.99). However, they required the greatest resuscitation volume among all fluid types, especially in trauma patients. In patients with traumatic brain injury, saline and L-HES achieved lower mortality than albumin and balanced crystalloids; especially saline was significantly superior to iso-oncotic albumin (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35–0.87). Conclusions Our network meta-analysis found that balanced crystalloids and albumin decreased mortality more than L-HES and saline in sepsis patients; however, saline or L-HES was better than iso-oncotic albumin or balanced crystalloids in traumatic brain injury patients. Trial registration PROSPERO website, registration number: CRD42018115641).

Background Intravenous fluids, an essential component of sepsis resuscitation, may paradoxically worsen outcomes by exacerbating endothelial injury. Preclinical models suggest that fluid resuscitation degrades the endothelial glycocalyx, a heparan sulfate-enriched structure necessary for vascular homeostasis. We hypothesized that endothelial glycocalyx degradation is associated with the volume of intravenous fluids administered during early sepsis resuscitation. Methods We used mass spectrometry to measure plasma heparan sulfate (a highly sensitive and specific index of systemic endothelial glycocalyx degradation) after 6 h of intravenous fluids in 56 septic shock patients, at presentation and after 24 h of intravenous fluids in 100 sepsis patients, and in two groups of non-infected patients. We compared plasma heparan sulfate concentrations between sepsis and non-sepsis patients, as well as between sepsis survivors and sepsis non-survivors. We used multivariable linear regression to model the association between volume of intravenous fluids and changes in plasma heparan sulfate. Results Consistent with previous studies, median plasma heparan sulfate was elevated in septic shock patients (118 [IQR, 113–341] ng/ml 6 h after presentation) compared to non-infected controls (61 [45–79] ng/ml), as well as in a second cohort of sepsis patients (283 [155–584] ng/ml) at emergency department presentation) compared to controls (177 [144–262] ng/ml). In the larger sepsis cohort, heparan sulfate predicted in-hospital mortality. In both cohorts, multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and severity of illness demonstrated a significant association between volume of intravenous fluids administered during resuscitation and plasma heparan sulfate. In the second cohort, independent of disease severity and age, each 1 l of intravenous fluids administered was associated with a 200 ng/ml increase in circulating heparan sulfate ( p  = 0.006) at 24 h after enrollment. Conclusions Glycocalyx degradation occurs in sepsis and septic shock and is associated with in-hospital mortality. The volume of intravenous fluids administered during sepsis resuscitation is independently associated with the degree of glycocalyx degradation. These findings suggest a potential mechanism by which intravenous fluid resuscitation strategies may induce iatrogenic endothelial injury.

Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited. At 18 centers, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute pancreatitis to receive goal-directed aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution. Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 ml per kilogram of body weight, followed by 3 ml per kilogram per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 ml per kilogram in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 ml per kilogram per hour in all patients in this group. Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to the patient's clinical status. The primary outcome was the development of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis during the hospitalization. The main safety outcome was fluid overload. The planned sample size was 744, with a first planned interim analysis after the enrollment of 248 patients. A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis. The trial was halted owing to between-group differences in the safety outcomes without a significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; adjusted relative risk, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 2.18; P = 0.32). Fluid overload developed in 20.5% of the patients who received aggressive resuscitation and in 6.3% of those who received moderate resuscitation (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.36 to 5.94, P = 0.004). The median duration of hospitalization was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 8) in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7) in the moderate-resuscitation group. In this randomized trial involving patients with acute pancreatitis, early aggressive fluid resuscitation resulted in a higher incidence of fluid overload without improvement in clinical outcomes. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; WATERFALL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381169.).

PurposeTo determine the effects of the sodium content of maintenance fluid therapy on cumulative fluid balance and electrolyte disorders.MethodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial of adults undergoing major thoracic surgery, randomly assigned (1:1) to receive maintenance fluids containing 154 mmol/L (Na154) or 54 mmol/L (Na54) of sodium from the start of surgery until their discharge from the ICU, the occurrence of a serious adverse event or the third postoperative day at the latest. Investigators, caregivers and patients were blinded to the treatment. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance. Electrolyte disturbances were assessed as secondary endpoints, different adverse events and physiological markers as safety and exploratory endpoints.FindingsWe randomly assigned 70 patients; primary outcome data were available for 33 and 34 patients in the Na54 and Na154 treatment arms, respectively. Estimated cumulative fluid balance at 72 h was 1369 mL (95% CI 601–2137) more positive in the Na154 arm (p < 0.001), despite comparable non-study fluid sources. Hyponatremia < 135 mmol/L was encountered in four patients (11.8%) under Na54 compared to none under Na154 (p = 0.04), but there was no significantly more hyponatremia < 130 mmol/L (1 versus 0; p = 0.31). There was more hyperchloremia > 109 mmol/L under Na154 (24/35 patients, 68.6%) than under Na54 (4/34 patients, 11.8%) (p < 0.001). The treating clinicians discontinued the study due to clinical or radiographic fluid overload in six patients receiving Na154 compared to one patient under Na54 (excess risk 14.2%; 95% CI − 0.2–30.4%, p = 0.05).ConclusionsIn adult surgical patients, sodium-rich maintenance solutions were associated with a more positive cumulative fluid balance and hyperchloremia; hypotonic fluids were associated with mild and asymptomatic hyponatremia.

Purpose We assessed the effects of a protocol restricting resuscitation fluid vs. a standard care protocol after initial resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods We randomised 151 adult patients with septic shock who had received initial fluid resuscitation in nine Scandinavian ICUs. In the fluid restriction group fluid boluses were permitted only if signs of severe hypoperfusion occurred, while in the standard care group fluid boluses were permitted as long as circulation continued to improve. Results The co-primary outcome measures, resuscitation fluid volumes at day 5 and during ICU stay, were lower in the fluid restriction group than in the standard care group [mean differences −1.2 L (95 % confidence interval −2.0 to −0.4); p  < 0.001 and −1.4 L (−2.4 to −0.4) respectively; p  < 0.001]. Neither total fluid inputs and balances nor serious adverse reactions differed statistically significantly between the groups. Major protocol violations occurred in 27/75 patients in the fluid restriction group. Ischaemic events occurred in 3/75 in the fluid restriction group vs. 9/76 in the standard care group (odds ratio 0.32; 0.08–1.27; p  = 0.11), worsening of acute kidney injury in 27/73 vs. 39/72 (0.46; 0.23–0.92; p  = 0.03), and death by 90 days in 25/75 vs. 31/76 (0.71; 0.36–1.40; p  = 0.32). Conclusions A protocol restricting resuscitation fluid successfully reduced volumes of resuscitation fluid compared with a standard care protocol in adult ICU patients with septic shock. The patient-centred outcomes all pointed towards benefit with fluid restriction, but our trial was not powered to show differences in these exploratory outcomes. Trial registration NCT02079402.

Sepsis is associated with generalised endothelial injury and capillary leak and has traditionally been treated with large volume fluid resuscitation. Some patients with sepsis will accumulate bodily fluids. The aim of this study was to systematically review the association between a positive fluid balance/fluid overload and outcomes in critically ill adults, and to determine whether interventions aimed at reducing fluid balance may be linked with improved outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Database, clinical trials registries, and bibliographies of included articles. Two authors independently reviewed citations and selected studies examining the association between fluid balance and outcomes or where the intervention was any strategy or protocol that attempted to obtain a negative or neutral cumulative fluid balance after the third day of intensive care compared to usual care. The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence of IAH and mortality. Among all identified citations, one individual patient meta-analysis, 11 randomised controlled clinical trials, seven interventional studies, 24 observational studies, and four case series met the inclusion criteria. Altogether, 19,902 critically ill patients were studied. The cumulative fluid balance after one week of ICU stay was 4.4 L more positive in non-survivors compared to survivors. A restrictive fluid management strategy resulted in a less positive cumulative fluid balance of 5.6 L compared to controls after one week of ICU stay. A restrictive fluid management was associated with a lower mortality compared to patients treated with a more liberal fluid management strategy (24.7% vs 33.2%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI 0.32-0.55; P < 0.0001). Patients with intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) had a more positive cumulative fluid balance of 3.4 L after one week of ICU stay. Interventions to decrease fluid balance resulted in a decrease in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP): an average total body fluid removal of 4.9 L resulted in a drop in IAP from 19.3 ± 9.1 mm Hg to 11.5 ± 3.9 mm Hg. A positive cumulative fluid balance is associated with IAH and worse outcomes. Interventions to limit the development of a positive cumulative fluid balance are associated with improved outcomes. In patients not transgressing spontaneously from the Ebb to Flow phases of shock, late conservative fluid management and late goal directed fluid removal (de-resuscitation) should be considered.

PurposeThis is the first of three parts of the clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) on resuscitation fluids in adult critically ill patients. This part addresses fluid choice and the other two will separately address fluid amount and fluid removal.MethodsThis guideline was formulated by an international panel of clinical experts and methodologists. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision.ResultsFor volume expansion, the guideline provides conditional recommendations for using crystalloids rather than albumin in critically ill patients in general (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with acute respiratory failure (very low certainty of evidence) and in patients in the perioperative period and patients at risk for bleeding (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than albumin in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using albumin rather than crystalloids in patients with cirrhosis (very low certainty of evidence). The guideline provides conditional recommendations for using balanced crystalloids rather than isotonic saline in critically ill patients in general (low certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (low certainty of evidence) and in patients with kidney injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than balanced crystalloids in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic crystalloids rather than small-volume hypertonic crystalloids in critically ill patients in general (very low certainty of evidence).ConclusionsThis guideline provides eleven recommendations to inform clinicians on resuscitation fluid choice in critically ill patients.