ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Volume kinetics in a translational porcine model of stabilized sepsis with fluid accumulation.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does kidney function in experimental porcine sepsis fulfill the RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury? A systematic review.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- The Postnatal Lung Maturation Disrupted by Increased Pulmonary Blood Flow and Its Clinical Implications.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Albumin 20% in surgical and critically ill patients; a comprehensive review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- The physiologic power of fluid circulation and implications for fluid therapy.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Physiology and Molecular Mechanisms of the "Third Fluid Space".Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Where does the fluid go?Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Subcutaneous interstitial pressure measurement during early septic shock: an exploratory study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid dynamics during and after a septic event is complex, but better knowledge could guide both fluid resuscitation and fluid removal. We aimed to compare fluid dynamics before and after sepsis in a clinically relevant mono-bacterial porcine model.
methodsTwelve sows with a mean body weight of 56 kg were anesthetized, mechanically ventilated, and invasively monitored. Sepsis was induced with an intravenous infusion of P. aeruginosa. Animals were resuscitated during the acute septic phase according to a protocolized algorithm. Volume kinetics was studied before the bacterial infusion (baseline) and 24 h later (late sepsis), and both consisted of an infusion of 1,500 mL of 0.9% saline over 20 min with repeated hemoglobin and albumin measurements and urine quantification.
resultsThe kinetic analysis at baseline showed transient volume expansion of the central fluid compartment (the plasma) and a fast-exchange interstitial space, while gradually more fluid accumulated in the remote "third fluid space" with very slow turnover. In the late sepsis phase, hypoalbuminemia and slight hypovolemia was observed. As compared with baseline, fluid kinetics showed improved plasma expansion, and more expansion of the fast-exchange interstitial space rather than the slow-exchange space. The rate constant k
conclusionAfter sepsis, fluid was accumulated in the slow-exchange compartment, and further fluid administration distributed preferentially to the fast-exchange compartment with acceleration of lymph flow, improved plasma expansion, and recruitment of interstitial albumin.
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.