ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2020
Optimal target in septic shock resuscitation.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Norepinephrine titration in patients with sepsis-induced encephalopathy: cerebral pulsatility index compared to mean arterial pressure guided protocol: randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Comparison of vasopressin-first weaning versus norepinephrine-first weaning in critically ill patients.International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- The intricate relationship between capillary refill time and systemic hemodynamics in septic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Optimizing Mean Arterial Pressure Targets for Septic Shock Patients With Chronic Hypertension: A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2025Article
- PiCCO or Cardiac Ultrasound? Which Is Better for Hemodynamic Monitoring in ICU?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Impact of different intravenous bolus rates on fluid and electrolyte balance and mortality in critically ill patients.World journal of critical care medicine · 2024Review
- MAN VERSUS MACHINE: PROVIDER DIRECTED VERSUS PRECISION AUTOMATED CRITICAL CARE MANAGEMENT IN A PORCINE MODEL OF DISTRIBUTIVE SHOCK.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2024Article
- Effect on capillary refill time of volume expansion and increase of the norepinephrine dose in patients with septic shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Observational
- Bedside Hyperspectral Imaging and Organ Dysfunction Severity in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients-A Prospective, Monocentric Observational Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Incidence Rate and Factors Associated with Delirium and Subsyndromal Delirium in Patients with COVID-19 in an Intensive Care Unit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Agreement between Capillary Refill Time measured at Finger and Earlobe sites in different positions: a pilot prospective study on healthy volunteers.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Observational
- Identification of Potential Biomarkers of Septic Shock Based on Pathway and Transcriptome Analyses of Immune-Related Genes.Genetics research · 2023Article
- Tendency of dynamic vasoactive and inotropic medications data as a robust predictor of mortality in patients with septic shock: An analysis of the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Pathophysiology of fluid administration in critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2022Review
- Effective hemodynamic monitoring.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Review
- Capillary refill time in sepsis: A useful and easily accessible tool for evaluating perfusion in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Clinical characteristics and in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 in Chile: A prospective cohort study.International journal of clinical practice · 2021Article
- Hemodynamic Monitoring in Sepsis-A Conceptual Framework of Macro- and Microcirculatory Alterations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Norepinephrine Dosage Is Associated With Lactate Clearance After Resuscitation in Patients With Septic Shock.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Understanding hemodynamics with seven variables.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Septic shock presents a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Through therapeutic strategies, such as fluid administration and vasoactive agents, clinicians intend to rapidly restore tissue perfusion. Nonetheless, these interventions have narrow therapeutic margins. Adequate perfusion monitoring is paramount to avoid progressive hypoperfusion or detrimental over-resuscitation. During early stages of septic shock, macrohemodynamic derangements, such as hypovolemia and decreased cardiac output (CO) tend to predominate. However, during late septic shock, endothelial and coagulation dysfunction induce severe alterations of the microcirculation, making it more difficult to achieve tissue reperfusion. Multiple perfusion variables have been described in the literature, from bedside clinical examination to complex laboratory tests. Moreover, all of them present inherent flaws and limitations. After the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial, there is evidence that capillary refill time (CRT) is an interesting resuscitation target, due to its rapid kinetics and correlation with deep hypoperfusion markers. New concepts such as hemodynamic coherence and flow responsiveness may be used at the bedside to select the best treatment strategies at any time-point. A multimodal perfusion monitoring and an integrated analysis with macrohemodynamic parameters is mandatory to optimize the resuscitation of septic shock patients.
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.