Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Compare the restrictive fluid versus the dynamic testing strategy in septic shock.</p> Methods <p>This study was a randomized controlled trial that enrolled 80 consecutive patients who had been diagnosed with septic shock and were managed in accordance with the guidelines of SSC. The study was carried out in the Critical Care Department of Cairo University. Patients were assigned (1:1) into the restrictive group (predetermined fluid administration rate of 1&#xa0;ml/kg/hour), and the dynamic testing group.</p> Results <p>Eighty patients were enrolled. Clinical severity scores were higher in the restrictive group. Logistic regression revealed no significant difference in the adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (hazard’s risk 0.913, P 0.903, CI 95% 0.212–3.935). The fluid strategy did not affect the need for dialysis, mechanical ventilation, or the length of stay in the intensive care unit.</p> Conclusions <p>The restrictive fluid strategy demonstrated similarity to a dynamic-based strategy concerning in-hospital mortality rates, the requirement for ventilation, dialysis, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Dynamic testing-based versus restrictive-based fluid administration following early fluid resuscitation in septic shock patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月4日

查看全文
  • Nashwa Elamir,
  • Khaled Toema,
  • Walid Ahmed,
  • Shaimaa Abdelbaky

摘要

Purpose

Compare the restrictive fluid versus the dynamic testing strategy in septic shock.

Methods

This study was a randomized controlled trial that enrolled 80 consecutive patients who had been diagnosed with septic shock and were managed in accordance with the guidelines of SSC. The study was carried out in the Critical Care Department of Cairo University. Patients were assigned (1:1) into the restrictive group (predetermined fluid administration rate of 1 ml/kg/hour), and the dynamic testing group.

Results

Eighty patients were enrolled. Clinical severity scores were higher in the restrictive group. Logistic regression revealed no significant difference in the adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (hazard’s risk 0.913, P 0.903, CI 95% 0.212–3.935). The fluid strategy did not affect the need for dialysis, mechanical ventilation, or the length of stay in the intensive care unit.

Conclusions

The restrictive fluid strategy demonstrated similarity to a dynamic-based strategy concerning in-hospital mortality rates, the requirement for ventilation, dialysis, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit.