English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Few clinicians would challenge the contention that fluid resuscitation of sepsis improves tissue perfusion thereby protecting end-organs from injury. This is an underlying tenet of current Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) recommendations (1) and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate that hospitals report sepsis bundle compliance as a measure of healthcare quality. It has persisted for decades despite the lack of convincing empirical evidence that fluid resuscitation improves clinical outcomes. To the contrary, large randomized controlled trials have shown that aggressive intravenous fluid resuscitation prolongs the need for mechanical ventilation (2) and increases mortality in some patients (3) – more on these studies later. Furthermore, the pathophysiological rationale commonly used to explain why fluid resuscitation ought to be beneficial has been challenged by a growing body of evidence. This article started as a journal club held by our Pulmonary Critical Care fellows, but we expanded the scope to review other related studies over the past 50 years that challenge the current accepted paradigm of aggressive fluid resuscitation of sepsis and septic shock.

Fluid resuscitation for septic shock – a 50-year perspective: from dogma to skepticism