Comparative efficacy of hemodynamic resuscitation strategies in severe sepsis: a systematic review of impact on mortality and complications in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Severe sepsis and septic shock present significant challenges in critical care, requiring effective hemodynamic resuscitation strategies to improve patient outcomes. This review aims to assess the comparative efficacy of hemodynamic resuscitation strategies—including fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, and advanced therapeutic interventions—on mortality, ICU stay, and complications in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published between 2019 and 2024. Eligible studies focused on the effects of different hemodynamic strategies in severe sepsis patients. A total of 3138 articles were identified, and after screening, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Fourteen studies were included, encompassing various strategies such as EGDT, vasopressor use, and fluid resuscitation. Notably, EGDT did not show significant mortality reduction compared to protocolized resuscitation care, with vasopressor demand 20% lower in the EGDT group. Balanced crystalloids significantly reduced 30-day mortality compared to saline. Early norepinephrine improved shock control rates and reduced mortality compared to standard care. Fluid resuscitation strategies showed mixed outcomes; while higher fluid resuscitation rates were linked to faster shock reversal and lower 28-day mortality, medium-volume fluid resuscitation (20-30 mL/kg) was most effective in reducing 28-day mortality. Prehospital hemodynamic optimization also demonstrated a significant reduction in 30-day mortality. Conclusion: Hemodynamic strategies such as balanced crystalloids and early norepinephrine may improve outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock, although further studies are needed to determine optimal treatment protocols.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".