Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42125087›Full record

ReviewAnnals of intensive care2026

Unnecessary fluid therapy in patients with shock: Five classic fluid pitfalls and five ways to do it better.

Martin Vanden Eede, Niels Van Regenmortel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Martin Vanden EedeZiekenhuis aan de Stroom Campus Middelheim, Department of Emergency Medicine, Lindendreef 1, 2020 Antwerpen, Belgium.
Niels Van RegenmortelZiekenhuis aan de Stroom Campus Cadix, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Kempenstraat 100, 2030 Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intravenous fluid therapy remains a cornerstone of shock management, yet is frequently misapplied. Unnecessary administration can lead to avoidable harm, including fluid accumulation, electrolyte disturbances, and delayed recovery. Despite good intentions, clinicians often fall into predictable patterns that drive overinfusion. Recognizing and correcting these habits is an important step toward safer and more effective fluid management, which may contribute to better patient outcomes. This narrative review highlights five recurring pitfalls in fluid management: confusion between resuscitation, maintenance, and replacement indications; failure to account for hidden fluid sources; underestimation of the impact of sodium burdens; reflexive fluid administration in response to misinterpreted markers such as hyperlactatemia, low central venous pressure or reduced urine output; and finally, a narrow focus on fluid responsiveness without consideration of fluid tolerance. To address these challenges, we propose a pragmatic, physiology-based approach to fluid stewardship. Key strategies include adopting a phase-based model for fluid therapy, minimizing unnecessary sodium and chloride exposure, interpreting fluid balance data with caution, initiating early vasopressor support when appropriate, and employing structured de-resuscitation (and preventive) strategies rather than relying solely on loop diuretics. Thoughtful, physiology-driven fluid therapy requires more than reflexes, fixed volumes and flowcharts, it demands context-sensitive, physiology-informed decision-making. By recognizing common mistakes and adopting simple yet powerful principles, clinicians can shift from automatic to analytic and from flood to finesse.

Indexed as

Fluid overloadFluid stewardshipFluid therapyMaintenance fluidsPathophysiologyResuscitation fluidsSepsisShockVolume status

Identifiers

PMID42125087
PMCPMC13158775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.