ReviewJournal of intensive care2026
From fluid responsiveness to fluid effectiveness: an endothelial perspective on fluid therapy in critical illness.
Review in Journal 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluid responsiveness is the cornerstone of circulatory management in critical illness, offering a physiologically intuitive framework for guiding fluid therapy. Nonetheless, clinical experience and accumulating evidence suggest that an increase in cardiac output does not necessarily translate into improved microcirculatory perfusion, particularly during the advanced stages of critical illness. Such dissociation between macrocirculatory stabilization and persistent tissue-level hypoperfusion challenges conventional volume-centered resuscitation paradigms. This review revisits the concept of fluid responsiveness from a microcirculatory perspective and proposes endothelial integrity, rather than circulatory responsiveness alone, as an important determinant of the effectiveness of fluid therapy. By integrating classical physiology with contemporary insights into endothelial biology, this review highlights the endothelial glycocalyx as a functional interface that may influence intravascular fluid retention, vascular permeability, and hemodynamic coherence. Glycocalyx disruption, which is increasingly conceptualized as a component of "endotheliopathy" in critical illness, may be one mechanistic contributor to fluid unresponsiveness, progressive interstitial edema, and diminishing benefits of continued fluid loading. Additionally, this review discusses the implications of this framework for interpreting fluid trials, bedside assessment of tissue perfusion, and endothelial biomarker use to contextualize resuscitation strategies. Building on the established concepts of hemodynamic coherence and the revised Starling-glycocalyx model, this review introduces "fluid effectiveness" as a complementary framework alongside fluid responsiveness, providing a physiologically coherent approach to understanding when fluid therapy can translate into organ-level benefit and why this translation may fail as endothelial and glycocalyx injury progress.
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.