Network members
You are here
Liberal Versus Restrictive Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Early Septic Shock: Rationale for a Randomized Trial.
Title | Liberal Versus Restrictive Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Early Septic Shock: Rationale for a Randomized Trial. |
Publication Type | Journal Article |
Year of Publication | 2018 |
Authors | Self WH, Semler MW, Bellomo R, Brown SM, deBoisblanc BP, Exline MC, Ginde AA, Grissom CK, Janz DR, Jones AE, Liu KD, Macdonald SPJ, Miller CD, Park PK, Reineck LA, Rice TW, Steingrub JS, Talmor D, Yealy DM, Douglas IS, Shapiro NI |
Corporate Authors | CLOVERS Protocol Committee and NHLBI Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury(PETAL) Network Investigators |
Journal | Ann Emerg Med |
Volume | 72 |
Issue | 4 |
Pagination | 457-466 |
Date Published | 2018 Oct |
ISSN | 1097-6760 |
Keywords | Drug Administration Schedule, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Shock, Septic, Vasoconstrictor Agents |
Abstract | Prompt intravenous fluid therapy is a fundamental treatment for patients with septic shock. However, the optimal approach for administering intravenous fluid in septic shock resuscitation is unknown. Two competing strategies are emerging: a liberal fluids approach, consisting of a larger volume of initial fluid (50 to 75 mL/kg [4 to 6 L in an 80-kg adult] during the first 6 hours) and later use of vasopressors, versus a restrictive fluids approach, consisting of a smaller volume of initial fluid (≤30 mL/kg [≤2 to 3 L]), with earlier reliance on vasopressor infusions to maintain blood pressure and perfusion. Early fluid therapy may enhance or maintain tissue perfusion by increasing venous return and cardiac output. However, fluid administration may also have deleterious effects by causing edema within vital organs, leading to organ dysfunction and impairment of oxygen delivery. Conversely, a restrictive fluids approach primarily relies on vasopressors to reverse hypotension and maintain perfusion while limiting the administration of fluid. Both strategies have some evidence to support their use but lack robust data to confirm the benefit of one strategy over the other, creating clinical and scientific equipoise. As part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network, we designed a randomized clinical trial to compare the liberal and restrictive fluids strategies, the Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressor Early Resuscitation in Sepsis trial. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on approaches to early fluid resuscitation in adults with septic shock and outline the rationale for the upcoming trial. |
DOI | 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.03.039 |
Alternate Journal | Ann Emerg Med |
PubMed ID | 29753517 |
PubMed Central ID | PMC6380679 |
Grant List | U01 HL123018 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123031 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123020 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL122989 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123009 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123004 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States K23 GM110469 / GM / NIGMS NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123008 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123022 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123023 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123027 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL122998 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123033 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U01 HL123010 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States U54 GM115428 / GM / NIGMS NIH HHS / United States |