ReviewAnnals of intensive care2017
Fluid resuscitation in human sepsis: Time to rewrite history?
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Value of variation of end-tidal carbon dioxide for predicting fluid responsiveness during the passive leg raising test in patients with mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Deresuscitation Informed by Ultrasound in Patients With Septic Shock Trial: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Trial
- The Restrictive IV Fluid Trial in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock (RIFTS): A Randomized Pilot Study.Critical care medicine · 2019Trial
- Restricted fluid resuscitation in suspected sepsis associated hypotension (REFRESH): a pilot randomised controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2018Trial
- Resuscitation Targets, Fluids, and Vasoactives in Septic Shock.Clinics in chest medicine · 2026Review
- Rethinking Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock: A Phase-Adapted, Endothelium-Sparing Approach to Mitigate Capillary Leak.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Variation of perfusion index to evaluate fluid responsiveness during the preload challenge tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Optimal time and volume of fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: a nationwide multicenter cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Revolution in sepsis: a symptoms-based to a systems-based approach?Journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- Questioning the Role of Carotid Artery Ultrasound in Assessing Fluid Responsiveness in Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care research and practice · 2024Review
- Impact of a cumulative positive fluid balance during the first three ICU days in patients with sepsis: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Annals of intensive care · 2023Article
- Review
- New Insights into the Fluid Management in Patients with Septic Shock.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Oxygen therapy for sepsis and prevention of complications.Acute and critical care · 2022Article
- Pediatric sepsis phenotypes for enhanced therapeutics: An application of clustering to electronic health records.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- [Fluid management in shock patients : New targets in the initial phase of shock].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2021Review
- Prognostic value of hemodynamic indices in patients with sepsis after fluid resuscitation.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Type 1 interferon aggravates lipopolysaccharide-induced sepsis through upregulating Caspase-11 and Gasdermin D.Journal of physiology and biochemistry · 2021Article
- Ulinastatin as an Adjuvant Therapy to Restricting Volumes of Resuscitation Fluid Strategy for Patients with Septic Shock after Initial Management.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- Performance of a 25% Inferior Vena Cava Collapsibility in Detecting Fluid Responsiveness When Assessed by Novice Versus Expert Physician Sonologists.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluid resuscitation continues to be recommended as the first-line resuscitative therapy for all patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The current acceptance of the therapy is based in part on long history and familiarity with its use in the resuscitation of other forms of shock, as well as on an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis. Recently, the safety of intravenous fluids in patients with sepsis has been called into question with both prospective and observational data suggesting improved outcomes with less fluid or no fluid. The current evidence for the continued use of fluid resuscitation for sepsis remains contentious with no prospective evidence demonstrating benefit to fluid resuscitation as a therapy in isolation. This article reviews the historical and physiological rationale for the introduction of fluid resuscitation as treatment for sepsis and highlights a number of significant concerns based on current experimental and clinical evidence. The research agenda should focus on the development of hyperdynamic animal sepsis models which more closely mimic human sepsis and on experimental and clinical studies designed to evaluate minimal or no fluid strategies in the resuscitation phase of sepsis.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.