ArticleIntensive care medicine2017
Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database.
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.
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.
Outcomes of Metabolic Resuscitation Using Ascorbic Acid, Thiamine, and Glucocorticoids in the Early Treatment of Sepsis.
Guided Fluid-balance Optimization With Mini-fluid chALlenge During Septic Shock: A Multicenter, Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial
Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock Patients With BMI Elevation
Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula on IVC Measurements Using Point of Care Ultrasound
Assessment of Intra-thoracic Water by Bio Reactance During Stabilization and Therapeutic De-escalation in Septic Shock: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study
Who cites it
181 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 364 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluid resuscitation in adults with severe infection and sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Early management of adult sepsis and septic shock: Korean clinical practice guidelines.Acute and critical care · 2024Guideline
- Study based on bibliometric analysis: potential research trends in fluid management for sepsis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Fluid challenge in critically ill patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring: a systematic review and comparison of two decades.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Does Fluid Administration Based on Fluid Responsiveness Tests such as Passive Leg Raising Improve Outcomes in Sepsis?Current cardiology reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Timing of norepinephrine initiation in patients with septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Assessing Fluid Resuscitation in Adults with Sepsis Who Are Not Mechanically Ventilated: a Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Trends in sepsis mortality over time in randomised sepsis trials: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of mortality in the control arm, 2002-2016.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Frequency and mortality of septic shock in Europe and North America: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Liberal Versus Restrictive Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Early Septic Shock: Rationale for a Randomized Trial.Annals of emergency medicine · 2018Pooled 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
- Effects of dynamic versus static parameter-guided fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: A randomized controlled trial.F1000Research · 2024Trial
- Non-interventional follow-up versus fluid bolus in RESPONSE to oliguria in hemodynamically stable critically ill patients: a randomized controlled pilot trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Trial
- 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 · 2022Trial
- Early use of high-dose vitamin C is beneficial in treatment of sepsis.Irish journal of medical science · 2021Trial
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasound-guided Fluid Resuscitation of Sepsis-Induced Hypoperfusion and Septic Shock.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021Trial
- Conservative Fluid Management After Sepsis Resuscitation: A Pilot Randomized Trial.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Effects of very early start of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock: a propensity score-based analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Trial
121 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.