Targeted Fluid Minimization Following Initial Resuscitation in Septic Shock
Abstract
Background IV fluid represents a basic therapeutic intervention for septic shock. Unfortunately, the optimal administration of IV fluid to maximize patient outcomes and prevent complications is largely unknown.Methods Patients with septic shock admitted to the medical ICUs of Barnes-Jewish Hospital (January to December 2014) requiring vasoactive agents for at least 12 h following initial fluid resuscitation were randomized to usual care or to targeted fluid minimization (TFM) guided by daily assessments of fluid responsiveness.Results Eighty-two patients were enrolled, 41 to usual care and 41 to TFM. For patients randomized to TFM, the net median (interquartile range) fluid balance was less at the end of day 3 (1,952 mL [48-5,003 mL] vs 3,124 mL [767-10,103 mL], P = .20) and at the end of day 5 (2,641 mL [-1,837 to 5,075 mL] vs 3,616 mL [ -1,513 mL to 9,746 mL], P = .40). TFM appeared to be safe, as indicated by similar clinical outcomes including in-hospital mortality (56.1% vs 48.8%, P = .51), ventilator days (8.0 days [3.25-15.25 days] vs 5.0 days [3.0-9.0 days], P = .30), renal replacement therapy (41.5% vs 39.0%, P = .82), and vasopressor days (4.0 days [2.0-8.0 days] vs 4.0 days [2.0-6.0 days], P = .84).Conclusions This pilot study suggests that TFM in patients with septic shock can be performed using protocol-guided assessments of fluid responsiveness. Larger trials of TFM in septic shock are needed.Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02473718; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The current evidence evaluating a restrictive IV fluid strategy in septic patients varies in inclusion criteria, definitions of restrictive and liberal strategies, criteria for additional fluids, and duration of interventions.
“The current evidence evaluating a restrictive IV fluid strategy in the management of septic patients varies with respect to the inclusion criteria, the definition of restrictive and liberal fluid strategies, the criteria guiding the administration of additional IV fluids (e.g., perfusion parameters vs. haemodynamic variables), and the duration of the interventions [397–401].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [397]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 92
- Authors
- Chen, C., & Kollef, M. H.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kollef, Marin H.
- Venue
- Chest
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 148
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1462-1469
- ISSN
- 0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1839481804
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 5.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- International Business Machines Corporation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
- Keywords
- septic shock, fluid resuscitation, fluid responsiveness, fluid balance, vasoactive drugs, vasopressor requirement, in-hospital mortality, renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation
- MeSH terms
- Critical Care, Female, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Respiration, Artificial, Shock, Septic, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Water-Electrolyte Imbalance, Rehydration Solutions, Treatment Outcome, Drug Monitoring, Hospital Mortality, Renal Replacement Therapy, APACHE
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review