MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097786723 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181feeb15

Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: A positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality*

2010· article· en· W2097786723 on OpenAlexafffund
John H. Boyd, Jason Forbes, Taka‐aki Nakada, Keith R. Walley, James A. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCentral venous pressureSeptic shockResuscitationShock (circulatory)AnesthesiaMortality rateRandomized controlled trialSurviving Sepsis CampaignBlood pressureInternal medicineSepsisHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether central venous pressure and fluid balance after resuscitation for septic shock are associated with mortality. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective review of the use of intravenous fluids during the first 4 days of care. SETTING: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: The Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST) study enrolled 778 patients who had septic shock and who were receiving a minimum of 5 μg of norepinephrine per minute. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Based on net fluid balance, we determined whether one's fluid balance quartile was correlated with 28-day mortality. We also analyzed whether fluid balance was predictive of central venous pressure and furthermore whether a guideline-recommended central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg yielded a mortality advantage. At enrollment, which occurred on average 12 hrs after presentation, the average fluid balance was +4.2 L. By day 4, the cumulative average fluid balance was +11 L. After correcting for age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, a more positive fluid balance at both at 12 hrs and day 4 correlated significantly with increased mortality. Central venous pressure was correlated with fluid balance at 12 hrs, whereas on days 1-4, there was no significant correlation. At 12 hrs, patients with central venous pressure <8 mm Hg had the lowest mortality rate followed by those with central venous pressure 8-12 mm Hg. The highest mortality rate was observed in those with central venous pressure >12 mm Hg. Contrary to the overall effect, patients whose central venous pressure was <8 mm Hg had improved survival with a more positive fluid balance. CONCLUSIONS: A more positive fluid balance both early in resuscitation and cumulatively over 4 days is associated with an increased risk of mortality in septic shock. Central venous pressure may be used to gauge fluid balance ≤ 12 hrs into septic shock but becomes an unreliable marker of fluid balance thereafter. Optimal survival in the VASST study occurred with a positive fluid balance of approximately 3 L at 12 hrs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1,534
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207