ArticleJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2019
Initial Fluid Resuscitation Following Adjusted Body Weight Dosing in Sepsis and Septic Shock.
Article in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Recommended 30 cc/kg Fluid Dose for Patients With Septic Shock and Hypoperfusion With Lactate Greater Than 4 mmol/L.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- Effect of Fluid Resuscitation Strategies for Obese Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review.Intensive care research · 2023Review
- Physician documentation matters. Using natural language processing to predict mortality in sepsis.Intelligence-based medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFluid administration is considered a fundamental part of early sepsis treatment. Despite abundant research, fundamental questions about the amount of fluids to be given remain unanswered. Recently, the idea of adjusting the fluid load to the ideal body weight emerged, as obesity rates are increasing, and fluid overload was proven to increase mortality. AIM OF THE STUDY: The study aimed to determine whether advanced haemodynamic monitoring supports the adjustment of the initial fluid load to the ideal body weight (IBW).
methodsSeventy-one patients with sepsis and septic shock were enrolled in the study. The initial fluid resuscitation was performed using local protocols. The haemodynamic status was assessed after the initial fluid load by transpulmonary thermos-dilution technique and the renal outcome recorded at twenty-four hours.
results68.6% of the patients included in the study had weight disorders ranging from BMI+20% to morbid obesity. Before IBW adjustment, only 49.3% received the 30 ml/kg fluid load recommended by Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines (2016) (SSC). After IBW adjustment, 70.4% received the recommended fluid dose. The difference in fluid load/kg before and after the bodyweight adjustment was statistically significant (p<0.01). After the initial fluid load, the majority of the macro haemodynamic parameters were in the targeted range. There was no statistically significant difference between the urinary output outcome at 24 hours or the 28 days mortality rates between the patients resuscitated by the SSC and those who received less fluid.
conclusionsAdvanced haemodynamic monitoring was in favour of adjusting the initial fluid load to the IBW. There were no statistically significant differences either in the urinary output outcome at twenty-four hours, or in the twenty-eight-day mortality rates between the patients who received the 30 ml/kg IBW and those who received less than 30 ml/kg IBW.
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.