Trial reportChest2020
Fluid Response Evaluation in Sepsis Hypotension and Shock: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 128 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.
Evaluation of Fluid Volume in Patients With Sepsis and Refractory Hypotension
Impact of an Echographic Algorithm on Hemodynamic Optimization in the First 4 Days of Septic Shock Management: a Multicentric, Randomized, Controlled, Open Label Pilot-study
Who cites it
128 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 264 citations in OpenAlex.
- ESICM guidelines on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring 2025.Intensive care medicine · 2025Guideline
- Dynamic Measures of Fluid Responsiveness to Guide Resuscitation in Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care explorations · 2025Pooled it
- European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) 2025 clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients: part 2-the volume of resuscitation fluids.Intensive care medicine · 2025Guideline
- Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Lactate-enhanced-qSOFA (LqSOFA) score as a predictor of in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
- Early management of adult sepsis and septic shock: Korean clinical practice guidelines.Acute and critical care · 2024Guideline
- Pooled it
- Restrictive resuscitation in patients with sepsis and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Pharmacotherapy · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of goal-directed fluid therapy on renal function in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Renal failure · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Does Fluid Administration Based on Fluid Responsiveness Tests such as Passive Leg Raising Improve Outcomes in Sepsis?Current cardiology reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of dynamic versus static parameter-guided fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis: A randomized controlled trial.F1000Research · 2024Trial
- Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension.The New England journal of medicine · 2023Trial
- 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
- Feasibility of conservative fluid administration and deresuscitation compared with usual care in critical illness: the Role of Active Deresuscitation After Resuscitation-2 (RADAR-2) randomised clinical trial.Intensive care medicine · 2022Trial
- Restrictive fluid management versus usual care in acute kidney injury (REVERSE-AKI): a pilot randomized controlled feasibility trial.Intensive care medicine · 2021Trial
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasound-guided Fluid Resuscitation of Sepsis-Induced Hypoperfusion and Septic Shock.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021Trial
- From early recognition to precision medicine: advances in the diagnosis and management of adult sepsis and septic shock-a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Integrated haemodynamic monitoring of fluid responsiveness and fluid tolerance in critical care: from physiology to bedside applications.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Review
- Personalized fluid resuscitation may reduce mortality in septic shock as compared with fixed-volume approach - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
68 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFluid and vasopressor management in septic shock remains controversial. In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy of dynamic measures (stroke volume change during passive leg raise) to guide resuscitation and improve patient outcome. RESEARCH QUESTION: Will resuscitation that is guided by dynamic assessments of fluid responsiveness in patients with septic shock improve patient outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial at 13 hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. Patients presented to EDs with sepsis that was associated hypotension and anticipated ICU admission. Intervention arm patients were assessed for fluid responsiveness before clinically driven fluid bolus or increase in vasopressors occurred. The protocol included reassessment and therapy as indicated by the passive leg raise result. The control arm received usual care. The primary clinical outcome was positive fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge, whichever occurred first.
resultsIn modified intent-to-treat analysis that included 83 intervention and 41 usual care eligible patients, fluid balance at 72 hours or ICU discharge was significantly lower (-1.37 L favoring the intervention arm; 0.65 ± 2.85 L intervention arm vs 2.02 ± 3.44 L usual care arm; P = .021. Fewer patients required renal replacement therapy (5.1% vs 17.5%; P = .04) or mechanical ventilation (17.7% vs 34.1%; P = .04) in the intervention arm compared with usual care. In the all-randomized intent-to-treat population (102 intervention, 48 usual care), there were no significant differences in safety signals.
interpretationPhysiologically informed fluid and vasopressor resuscitation with the use of the passive leg raise-induced stroke volume change to guide management of septic shock is safe and demonstrated lower net fluid balance and reductions in the risk of renal and respiratory failure. Dynamic assessments to guide fluid administration may improve outcomes for patients with septic shock compared with usual care. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT02837731.
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.