Deresuscitation of Patients With Iatrogenic Fluid Overload Is Associated With Reduced Mortality in Critical Illness*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterize current practice in fluid administration and deresuscitation (removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy), the relationship between fluid balance, deresuscitative measures, and outcomes and to identify risk factors for positive fluid balance in critical illness. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ten ICUs in the United Kingdom and Canada. PATIENTS: Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for a minimum of 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four-hundred patients were included. Positive cumulative fluid balance (fluid input greater than output) occurred in 87.3%: the largest contributions to fluid input were from medications and maintenance fluids rather than resuscitative IV fluids. In a multivariate logistic regression model, fluid balance on day 3 was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality (odds ratio 1.26/L [95% CI, 1.07-1.46]), whereas negative fluid balance achieved in the context of deresuscitative measures was associated with lower mortality. Independent predictors of greater fluid balance included treatment in a Canadian site. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid balance is a practice-dependent and potentially modifiable risk factor for adverse outcomes in critical illness. Negative fluid balance achieved with deresuscitation on day 3 of ICU stay is associated with improved patient outcomes. Minimization of day 3 fluid balance by limiting maintenance fluid intake and drug diluents, and using deresuscitative measures, represents a potentially beneficial therapeutic strategy which merits investigation in randomized trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".