Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28130687›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2017

Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database.

Paul E Marik, Walter T Linde-Zwirble, Edward A Bittner, Jennifer Sahatjian, Douglas Hansell

5 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 181 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
181citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
26.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03422159 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Outcomes of Metabolic Resuscitation Using Ascorbic Acid, Thiamine, and Glucocorticoids in the Early Treatment of Sepsis.

TypeinterventionalSponsorCommunity Medical Center, Toms River, NJRan2018 to 2019Enrolled140ConditionsSepsis, Severe, Septic ShockArmsAscorbic Acid, Thiamine, Hydrocortisone, Sodium Chloride 0.9%
NCT03461900 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Guided Fluid-balance Optimization With Mini-fluid chALlenge During Septic Shock: A Multicenter, Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, BrestRan2019 to 2024Enrolled535ConditionsSeptic ShockArmsMinifluid challenge, Usual practice
NCT04759989 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock Patients With BMI Elevation

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2021 to 2022Enrolled7ConditionsSepsis, Septic Shock, ObesityArmsActual Body Weight Dosing, Adjusted Body Weight Dosing, Ideal Body Weight Dosing
NCT05264454 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula on IVC Measurements Using Point of Care Ultrasound

TypeinterventionalSponsorNova Scotia Health AuthorityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled0ConditionsFluid OverloadArmshigh flow nasal cannulae
NCT06572995 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Assessment of Intra-thoracic Water by Bio Reactance During Stabilization and Therapeutic De-escalation in Septic Shock: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital, BrestRan2023 to 2025Enrolled50ConditionsSepsis, Septic Shock, Hemodynamic Instability, Fluid Overload
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

181 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 364 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. 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 · 2026
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Restrictive fluids versus standard care in adults with sepsis in the emergency department (REFACED): A multicenter, randomized feasibility trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

121 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paul E MarikDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, 825 Fairfax Avenue, Suite 410, Norfolk, VA, 23507, USA. marikpe@evms.edu.
Walter T Linde-ZwirbleTrexin Consulting, Chicago, IL, USA.
Edward A BittnerDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jennifer SahatjianCheetah Medical, Newton, MA, USA.
Douglas HansellDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USEastern Virginia Medical School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal strategy of fluid resuscitation in the early hours of severe sepsis and septic shock is controversial, with both an aggressive and conservative approach being recommended.

methodsWe used the 2013 Premier Hospital Discharge database to analyse the administration of fluids on the first ICU day, in 23,513 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, who were admitted to an ICU from the emergency department. Day 1 fluid was grouped into categories 1 L wide, starting with 1-1.99 L up to ≥9 L, to examine the effect of day 1 fluids on patient mortality. We built binary response models for hospital mortality and the propensity for receiving more than 5 L of fluids on day 1, using patient age and acute conditions present on admission. Patients were grouped by the requirement for mechanical ventilation and the presence or absence of shock. We assessed trends in the difference between actual and expected mortality, in the low fluid range (1-5 L day 1 fluids) and the high fluid range (5 to ≥9 L day 1 fluids) categories, using weighted linear regression controlling for the effects of sample size and variation within the day 1 fluid category.

resultsDay 1 fluid administration averaged 4.4 L being lowest in the group with no mechanical ventilation and no shock (3.6 L) and highest (5.4 L) in the group receiving mechanical ventilation and in shock. The administration of day 1 fluids was remarkably consistent on the basis of hospital size, teaching status, rural/urban location, and region of the country. The hospital mortality in the entire cohort was 25.8%, with a mean ICU and hospital length of stay of 5.1 and 9.1 days, respectively. In the entire cohort, low volume resuscitation (1-4.99 L) was associated with a small but significant reduction in mortality, of -0.7% per litre (95% CI -1.0%, -0.4%; p = 0.02). However, in patients receiving high volume resuscitation (5 to ≥9 L), the mortality increased by 2.3% (95% CI 2.0, 2.5%; p = 0.0003) for each additional litre above 5 L. Total hospital cost increased by $999 for each litre of fluid above 5 L (adjusted R

conclusionThe mean amount of fluid administered to patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the USA during the first ICU day is less than that recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. The administration of more than 5 L of fluid during the first ICU day is associated with a significantly increased risk of death and significantly higher hospital costs.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityAgedCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleFluid TherapyHospitalsHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayLinear ModelsMaleOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRespiration, ArtificialRiskSepsisFluid administrationMortalityNational databaseSepsisSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID28130687
OpenAlexW2580396496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.