BACKGROUNDIntravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODSIn this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTSWe enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, −1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, −7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONSAmong adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.

These recommendations are proposed to guide clinical research in the field of IAH and ACS.

No abstract

No abstract

The preferred methods for IAP measurement are via the bladder and via the stomach. In some patients, IGP and IBP may differ significantly and this may have clinical implications. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of localized ACS. In order to identify risk factors and to recommend treatment for localized ACS, further study of simultaneous IGP and IBP measurements are needed.

No abstract

The aim of the current paper is to summarize the results of the International CytoSorb Registry. Data were collected on patients of the intensive care unit. The primary endpoint was actual in-hospital mortality compared to the mortality predicted by APACHE II score. The main secondary endpoints were SOFA scores, inflammatory biomarkers and overall evaluation of the general condition. 1434 patients were enrolled. Indications for hemoadsorption were sepsis/septic shock (N = 936); cardiac surgery perioperatively (N = 172); cardiac surgery postoperatively (N = 67) and “other” reasons (N = 259). APACHE-II-predicted mortality was 62.0±24.8%, whereas observed hospital mortality was 50.1%. Overall SOFA scores did not change but cardiovascular and pulmonary SOFA scores decreased by 0.4 [-0.5;-0.3] and -0.2 [-0.3;-0.2] points, respectively. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein levels showed significant reduction: -15.4 [-19.6;-11.17] ng/mL; -17,52 [-70;44] mg/L, respectively. In the septic cohort PCT and IL-6 also showed significant reduction: -18.2 [-23.6;-12.8] ng/mL; -2.6 [-3.0;-2.2] pg/mL, respectively. Evaluation of the overall effect: minimal improvement (22%), much improvement (22%) and very much improvement (10%), no change observed (30%) and deterioration (4%). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of mortality, but there were improvements in cardiovascular and pulmonary SOFA scores and a reduction in PCT, CRP and IL-6 levels. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02312024 (retrospectively registered).

Patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) often require ICU admission, especially when signs of multiorgan failure are present, a condition that defines AP as severe. This disease is characterized by a massive pancreatic release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that causes a systemic inflammatory response syndrome and a profound intravascular fluid loss. This leads to a mixed hypovolemic and distributive shock and ultimately to multiorgan failure. Aggressive fluid resuscitation is traditionally considered the mainstay treatment of AP. In fact, all available guidelines underline the importance of fluid therapy, particularly in the first 24–48 h after disease onset. However, there is currently no consensus neither about the type, nor about the optimal fluid rate, total volume, or goal of fluid administration. In general, a starting fluid rate of 5–10 ml/kg/h of Ringer’s lactate solution for the first 24 h has been recommended. Fluid administration should be aggressive in the first hours, and continued only for the appropriate time frame, being usually discontinued, or significantly reduced after the first 24–48 h after admission. Close clinical and hemodynamic monitoring along with the definition of clear resuscitation goals are fundamental. Generally accepted targets are urinary output, reversal of tachycardia and hypotension, and improvement of laboratory markers. However, the usefulness of different endpoints to guide fluid therapy is highly debated. The importance of close monitoring of fluid infusion and balance is acknowledged by most available guidelines to avoid the deleterious effect of fluid overload. Fluid therapy should be carefully tailored in patients with severe AP, as for other conditions frequently managed in the ICU requiring large fluid amounts, such as septic shock and burn injury. A combination of both noninvasive clinical and invasive hemodynamic parameters, and laboratory markers should guide clinicians in the early phase of severe AP to meet organ perfusion requirements with the proper administration of fluids while avoiding fluid overload. In this narrative review the most recent evidence about fluid therapy in severe AP is discussed and an operative algorithm for fluid administration based on an individualized approach is proposed.