ArticleAnnals of intensive care2019
Survey of non-resuscitation fluids administered during septic shock: a multicenter prospective observational study.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids versus usual care in septic shock patients (REDUSE): a randomized multicentre feasibility trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Restrictive fluid management versus usual care in acute kidney injury (REVERSE-AKI): a pilot randomized controlled feasibility trial.Intensive care medicine · 2021Trial
- Association between early fluid overload and clinical outcomes in a pediatric ICU.Pediatric research · 2026Observational
- Trajectories of cumulative fluid balance and the association with pressure injuries in ICU patients.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Article
- Protocolized REDUction of Non-Resuscitation Fluids in SEptic Shock Patients. A Protocol for the REDUSE Randomized Clinical Trial.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Physician awareness of fluid volume administered with intravenous antibiotics: a structured interview-based study.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of intravenous fluid prescriptions in hospitalised patients: a point prevalence study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Impact of a Pharmacist-Driven Medication Diluent Volume Optimization Protocol on Fluid Balance and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients.Hospital pharmacy · 2024Article
- Article
- A burden of fluid, sodium, and chloride due to intravenous fluid therapy in patients with respiratory support: a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter cohort study.Annals of intensive care · 2022Article
- A Positive Fluid Balance in the First Week Was Associated With Increased Long-Term Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Fluid administration and monitoring in ARDS: which management?Intensive care medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe indication, composition and timing of administration of non-resuscitation fluid in septic shock have so far received little attention and accordingly the potential to reduce this source of fluid is unknown. The objective of the study was to quantify and characterize non-resuscitation fluid administered to patients with septic shock.
methodsThis prospective observational study was performed in eight intensive care units in Sweden and Canada during 4 months in 2018. Adult patients with septic shock within 24 h of admission to the intensive care unit were eligible for inclusion. Non-resuscitation fluids were defined as fluids other than colloids, blood products and crystalloids at a rate ≥ 5 ml/kg/h. Indication, volume and type of fluid were recorded during the first 5 days after admission. A maximum of 30 patients could be included per centre. To estimate the potential to reduce administration of non-resuscitation fluid, a pragmatic "restrictive" protocol for administration of non-resuscitation fluids was devised based on the most restrictive practice already in place for non-resuscitation fluids at any of the participating centres. Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]).
resultsA total of 200 patients were included in the study and the 30-day mortality was 35%. Patients received a total of 7870 (4060-12,340) ml of non-resuscitation fluids and 2820 (1430-4580) of resuscitation fluids during the observation period. Median volumes of non-resuscitation and resuscitation fluids were similar at day 1 (1620 [710-2320] and 1590 [520-3000]) ml, respectively) and non-resuscitation fluids represented the largest source of fluid from day 2 and onwards after admission to the ICU. Vehicles for drugs such as vasoactive drugs and antibiotics constituted the largest fraction of non-resuscitation fluids (2400 [1270-4030] ml) during the 5-day observation period. Modelling suggested that volume of non-resuscitation fluids could be reduced by 2840 (1270-4900) ml during the first 5 days of admission to the ICU, mainly through reducing maintenance fluids.
conclusionsNon-resuscitation fluids constitute the major fraction of fluids administered in the ICU to patients suffering from septic shock and may represent the largest modifiable target to reduce fluid overload.
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.