Fluid Stewardship in Critically Ill: From "Fluid Responsiveness" to "Fluid Intolerance"

A Paradigm Shift in Modern Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Fluid management in critically ill patients has evolved from a binary concept of fluid responsiveness to a nuanced understanding of fluid stewardship encompassing tolerance, de-escalation, and organ-specific outcomes.

Objective: To review current evidence on fluid stewardship strategies, advanced hemodynamic monitoring, and the clinical implications of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies on renal outcomes in intensive care units.

Methods: Comprehensive literature review of recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines published between 2020-2024.

Key Findings: Modern fluid stewardship emphasizes the "Goldilocks principle" - avoiding both hypovolemia and fluid overload. Advanced monitoring techniques including pulse pressure variation, passive leg raising, and point-of-care ultrasound have revolutionized fluid responsiveness assessment. Restrictive fluid strategies demonstrate superior outcomes in specific patient populations, particularly regarding renal function preservation.

Conclusions: The paradigm has shifted from "giving fluid because we can" to "withholding fluid because we should." Fluid stewardship requires integration of multiple monitoring modalities, understanding of fluid pharmacokinetics, and individualized patient assessment.

Keywords: Fluid stewardship, fluid responsiveness, fluid tolerance, critical care, hemodynamic monitoring, acute kidney injury

Introduction

The evolution of fluid management in critical care represents one of the most significant paradigm shifts in modern intensive care medicine. Historically, the approach to fluid resuscitation followed the "more is better" philosophy, driven by early sepsis guidelines and the fundamental principle of maintaining adequate tissue perfusion. However, accumulating evidence over the past decade has fundamentally challenged this approach, leading to the emergence of "fluid stewardship" - a comprehensive framework that encompasses not only when to give fluids, but equally importantly, when to stop, when to remove, and how to monitor the delicate balance between adequate perfusion and harmful fluid accumulation.

The concept of fluid responsiveness, while revolutionary in its time, represents only the first step in this complex decision-making process. Today's intensivist must navigate the intricate landscape from initial fluid responsiveness assessment through the recognition of fluid intolerance, ultimately aiming for what we term "euvolemic resuscitation" - the optimal fluid status that maximizes organ perfusion while minimizing the deleterious effects of fluid overload.

Historical Perspective and Paradigm Evolution

The "Liberal Era" (1990s-2010s)

The late 20th and early 21st centuries were characterized by aggressive fluid resuscitation strategies. The landmark Rivers trial (2001) advocating early goal-directed therapy popularized the concept of liberal fluid administration, with 6-8 liters of crystalloids in the first 6 hours being commonplace. This approach was supported by the physiological rationale of Frank-Starling mechanism and the belief that "you can't drown a fish."

The "Restrictive Revolution" (2010s-Present)

The FEAST trial (2011) marked the beginning of a critical reassessment, demonstrating increased mortality with fluid boluses in pediatric sepsis in resource-limited settings. Subsequently, the ARISE, ProCESS, and ProMISe trials challenged aggressive fluid strategies, while studies like CLASSIC and RELIEF provided compelling evidence for restrictive approaches in specific populations.

Physiology of Fluid Distribution and Tolerance

The Revised Starling Equation

Modern understanding of fluid physiology is grounded in the revised Starling equation, which incorporates the glycocalyx layer and its crucial role in microvascular permeability:

Jv = Lp × S × [(Pc - Pi) - σ(πc - πi)]

Where the endothelial glycocalyx serves as the primary barrier to fluid extravasation, not the interstitial space as previously thought. This has profound implications for understanding why fluid administration may become less effective and potentially harmful as critical illness progresses.

Clinical Pearl 🔹

The glycocalyx degradation in sepsis explains why the "third dose of fluid is never as effective as the first" - it's not just about the Frank-Starling curve, it's about fundamental changes in vascular integrity.

Fluid Compartments in Critical Illness

In healthy individuals, administered crystalloids distribute with approximately 25% remaining intravascular after 30 minutes. In critically ill patients with increased capillary permeability, this may decrease to 10-15%, explaining the diminishing returns of continued fluid administration.

Teaching Hack 💡

Use the "bucket with holes" analogy: In health, it's a bucket with small holes (normal capillary leak). In sepsis, the holes get bigger (increased permeability), and no amount of water will keep the bucket full - you'll just flood the surrounding area (interstitial edema).

Advanced Hemodynamic Monitoring: Beyond Central Venous Pressure

Dynamic Parameters of Fluid Responsiveness

1. Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) and Stroke Volume Variation (SVV)

Principle: In mechanically ventilated patients with adequate tidal volumes (≥8 ml/kg), respiratory variations in stroke volume predict fluid responsiveness with high accuracy.

Thresholds:

PPV >13%: Likely fluid responsive
PPV <9%: Unlikely fluid responsive
Gray zone (9-13%): Additional assessment needed

Limitations:

Requires controlled mechanical ventilation
Invalid in spontaneous breathing efforts
Arrhythmias reduce accuracy
Low tidal volume ventilation (<8 ml/kg) reduces predictive value

Oyster Warning ⚠️

PPV/SVV are only valid in fully sedated, controlled mechanical ventilation with adequate tidal volumes. Using these parameters in spontaneously breathing patients or during lung-protective ventilation (6 ml/kg) can lead to inappropriate fluid administration.

2. Passive Leg Raising (PLR) Test

The PLR test represents an elegant physiological maneuver that provides an auto-transfusion of approximately 150-200 ml of venous blood from the lower extremities.

Technique:

Baseline measurement in semi-recumbent position (45°)
Simultaneously lower the trunk to supine and raise legs to 45°
Measure cardiac output/stroke volume response within 90 seconds
Positive response: ≥10% increase in cardiac output

Advantages:

Valid in spontaneous breathing
Not affected by arrhythmias
Reversible test
Can be used with any cardiac output monitoring device

Clinical Pearl 🔹

PLR is the most versatile fluid responsiveness test - it works in awake patients, during spontaneous breathing, and with any cardiac output monitoring. Think of it as "borrowing" 200ml from the patient's own venous reservoir.

3. Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS)

Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Assessment:

IVC diameter and collapsibility index
Best measured in subcostal view
Collapsibility >50% suggests fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients

Limitations:

Operator dependent
Difficult in obese patients
Intra-abdominal hypertension affects accuracy

Echocardiographic Assessment:

Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity time integral (VTI)
Real-time assessment of cardiac output changes
Integration with PLR provides robust fluid responsiveness assessment

The Fluid Responsiveness Assessment Algorithm

Modern Approach to Fluid Challenge

Clinical Assessment
- Signs of hypoperfusion
- Evidence of fluid overload
- Hemodynamic instability
Choose Appropriate Monitoring
- PPV/SVV: Controlled ventilation, adequate TV
- PLR: Any ventilation mode, any patient
- IVC/Echo: When ultrasound expertise available
Perform Fluid Challenge
- 4 ml/kg crystalloid over 10-15 minutes
- Reassess hemodynamic parameters
- Document response
Interpret Results
- Positive response: Consider additional fluid if clinically indicated
- Negative response: Stop fluid administration, consider alternative therapies

Teaching Hack 💡

The "Rule of 4s": 4 ml/kg over 4 × 4 minutes (16 minutes total), reassess in 4 minutes. This provides a standardized, teachable approach to fluid challenges.

From Fluid Responsiveness to Fluid Intolerance

Defining Fluid Intolerance

Fluid intolerance represents the pathophysiological state where additional fluid administration leads to harm rather than benefit. This concept recognizes that fluid responsiveness (hemodynamic improvement) does not automatically translate to clinical benefit.

Clinical Markers of Fluid Intolerance:

Pulmonary edema development
Increased intra-abdominal pressure
Worsening oxygenation (P/F ratio decline)
Peripheral edema with functional compromise
Rising lactate despite apparent hemodynamic improvement

Oyster Warning ⚠️

A patient can be fluid responsive but fluid intolerant. Just because stroke volume increases doesn't mean you should give more fluid - look at the whole clinical picture, especially respiratory function and tissue perfusion markers.

The TACO-TRALI-AKI Triad

Understanding the relationship between fluid overload and organ dysfunction:

TACO (Transfusion Associated Circulatory Overload)
- Not limited to blood products
- Can occur with any rapid fluid administration
- Manifests as acute pulmonary edema
AKI (Acute Kidney Injury)
- Venous congestion impairs renal perfusion
- Intra-abdominal hypertension reduces renal blood flow
- Fluid overload paradoxically worsens renal function
Abdominal Compartment Syndrome
- Intra-abdominal pressure >20 mmHg
- Multi-organ dysfunction
- Often precipitated by excessive fluid resuscitation

Restrictive vs Liberal Fluid Strategies: The Evidence

Landmark Trials and Meta-Analyses

CLASSIC Trial (2022)

Population: ICU patients with sepsis or septic shock
Intervention: Restrictive (maintenance fluids) vs Liberal (maintenance + additional boluses)
Primary Outcome: 90-day mortality
Results: Restrictive strategy associated with lower 90-day mortality (42.3% vs 48.4%, p=0.03)
Key Insight: Less is more in established septic shock

RELIEF Trial (2020)

Population: Major abdominal surgery patients
Intervention: Restrictive (≤25 ml/kg/24h) vs Liberal (≥35 ml/kg/24h)
Primary Outcome: Composite of complications
Results: 36.6% complications (restrictive) vs 55.7% (liberal), p<0.001
Key Insight: Perioperative fluid restriction improves outcomes

ROSE Trial (2019)

Population: ARDS patients
Intervention: Conservative vs Liberal fluid strategy
Primary Outcome: Ventilator-free days
Results: More ventilator-free days with conservative strategy
Key Insight: Fluid restriction improves respiratory outcomes in ARDS

Meta-Analysis Evidence

Recent systematic reviews consistently demonstrate:

Reduced mortality with restrictive strategies (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98)
Decreased length of stay (mean difference -1.2 days)
Lower incidence of acute kidney injury
Improved respiratory outcomes

Clinical Pearl 🔹

The evidence overwhelmingly supports restrictive fluid strategies once the initial resuscitation phase is complete. The challenge is recognizing when to transition from "resuscitation mode" to "stewardship mode."

Renal Outcomes and Fluid Management

The Kidney-Fluid Paradox

Historically, fluid administration was considered "renal protective," based on the assumption that increased intravascular volume would improve renal perfusion. However, emerging evidence suggests the opposite may be true in many clinical scenarios.

Mechanisms of Fluid-Induced AKI

Venous Congestion
- Elevated central venous pressure impairs renal venous drainage
- Reduced trans-renal pressure gradient
- Worsened renal function despite adequate MAP
Intra-abdominal Hypertension
- Direct compression of renal vessels
- Reduced renal blood flow
- Activation of neurohormonal pathways
Hemodilution
- Reduced oxygen-carrying capacity
- Decreased oncotic pressure
- Impaired drug delivery to tissues

Teaching Hack 💡

Think of the kidney as a "sponge in a tight jar": The more you squeeze the jar (increase abdominal pressure with fluids), the less the sponge can expand and function, regardless of how much water you pour in.

Clinical Evidence: Fluid Balance and AKI

FACTT Trial Secondary Analysis:

Every 1000 ml positive fluid balance increased AKI risk by 8%
Cumulative fluid balance >5L associated with doubled AKI risk

Sepsis-Associated AKI Studies:

Positive fluid balance at 48-72 hours independently predicts AKI
Early de-escalation of fluids improves renal recovery

Biomarkers and Renal Monitoring

Traditional Markers:

Serum creatinine (delayed, insensitive)
Urine output (affected by diuretics, hemodynamics)

Modern Biomarkers:

NGAL (Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin): Early AKI detection
KIM-1 (Kidney Injury Molecule-1): Tubular injury marker
Cystatin C: GFR estimation independent of muscle mass

Oyster Warning ⚠️

Urine output is not always a reliable guide to fluid needs. Oliguria in the setting of fluid overload may indicate kidney dysfunction, not hypovolemia. Always consider the clinical context.

Practical Implementation of Fluid Stewardship

The STOP-LOOK-THINK Framework

STOP:

Daily assessment of fluid balance
Question each fluid order
Challenge the indication for maintenance fluids

LOOK:

Physical examination for fluid overload signs
Review trends in weight, fluid balance
Assess organ function markers

THINK:

Is this fluid necessary?
What is the expected benefit?
What are the potential harms?
When will I reassess?

Fluid Stewardship Rounds

Implementation of structured daily rounds focusing on:

Current fluid status assessment
24-hour fluid balance review
Clinical indicators of tolerance/intolerance
Plan for fluid management
De-escalation targets

Clinical Pearl 🔹

Institute "Fluid Stewardship Rounds" similar to antibiotic stewardship - daily assessment of ongoing fluid needs with explicit stop dates and clear indications.

Advanced Monitoring Technologies

Minimally Invasive Cardiac Output Monitoring

FloTrac/Vigileo System

Arterial waveform analysis
Real-time stroke volume and cardiac output
SVV monitoring for fluid responsiveness

LiDCO Systems

Lithium dilution calibration
Pulse power analysis
Trending capability for fluid challenges

Teaching Hack 💡

Modern monitors give us numbers, but the art of medicine is interpreting those numbers in clinical context. A rising cardiac output means nothing if the patient is developing pulmonary edema.

Non-invasive Monitoring

Bioreactance (NICOM)

Chest electrode system
Suitable for conscious patients
Trending accuracy for fluid responsiveness

Suprasternal Doppler

Aortic blood flow assessment
Real-time cardiac output estimation
Useful for fluid responsiveness testing

Integration with Electronic Health Records

Modern fluid stewardship requires:

Automated fluid balance calculations
Alert systems for excessive fluid administration
Integration with laboratory values and vital signs
Trending capabilities for decision support

Special Populations and Considerations

Septic Shock: The Changing Landscape

Initial Resuscitation (0-6 hours):

Liberal fluid strategy appropriate
Target: 30 ml/kg crystalloid
Assess fluid responsiveness before additional boluses

Stabilization Phase (6-24 hours):

Transition to restrictive approach
Focus on perfusion markers, not fluid balance
Consider vasopressors over additional fluid

Recovery Phase (>24 hours):

Active de-escalation
Consider diuretics if fluid overloaded
Target negative fluid balance if appropriate

Clinical Pearl 🔹

In septic shock, think in phases: "Resuscitate early, restrict late." The same patient needs different strategies at different time points in their illness.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

Evidence-based approach:

Conservative fluid strategy improves outcomes
Target CVP 4-6 mmHg or PAOP 8-12 mmHg
Balance between lung protection and organ perfusion

Practical implementation:

Daily fluid restriction goals
Diuretic therapy when appropriate
Monitor for signs of hypoperfusion

Post-operative Patients

Goal-Directed Therapy (GDT) principles:

Stroke volume optimization
Avoid both hypovolemia and fluid overload
Use dynamic parameters when available

Enhanced Recovery Protocols:

Minimize preoperative fasting
Targeted intraoperative fluid therapy
Early mobilization and oral intake

Oyster Warning ⚠️

Post-operative patients are often fluid intolerant due to surgical stress, inflammation, and capillary leak. Traditional "maintenance" fluid rates (e.g., 100-150 ml/hr) may be excessive in many patients.

De-escalation and Fluid Removal

When to Consider Fluid Removal

Clinical indicators:

Positive fluid balance >5-10 ml/kg/day
Signs of fluid intolerance
Improving hemodynamic stability
Resolution of capillary leak phase

Physiological markers:

Normalization of lactate
Adequate urine output without oliguria
Stable blood pressure without escalating vasopressor support

Diuretic Strategies

Loop Diuretics

Furosemide dosing:

Start with 1-2 mg/kg IV
Continuous infusion often more effective than boluses
Combine with thiazides for diuretic resistance

Monitoring:

Electrolyte balance (K+, Mg2+, PO4-)
Kidney function
Hemodynamic stability

Ultrafiltration

Indications:

Diuretic resistance
Severe fluid overload
AKI with fluid intolerance

Techniques:

Slow continuous ultrafiltration (SCUF)
Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH)
Isolated ultrafiltration

Teaching Hack 💡

Fluid removal should be as carefully monitored as fluid administration. Set specific targets (e.g., -500 ml/day) and reassess tolerance regularly.

Quality Improvement and Stewardship Programs

Key Performance Indicators

Process measures:

Percentage of patients with daily fluid balance assessment
Use of dynamic parameters before fluid boluses
Documentation of fluid indication and duration

Outcome measures:

Mean cumulative fluid balance at 48-72 hours
Incidence of fluid overload complications
Length of mechanical ventilation
ICU length of stay

Implementation Strategies

Education Programs
- Multidisciplinary training
- Case-based learning
- Simulation scenarios
Clinical Decision Support
- Electronic alerts for excessive fluid administration
- Automated fluid balance calculations
- Integration with monitoring systems
Audit and Feedback
- Regular review of fluid prescribing patterns
- Benchmarking against evidence-based targets
- Individual and unit-level feedback

Clinical Pearl 🔹

Successful fluid stewardship programs require cultural change, not just protocol implementation. Make fluid management as routine and structured as medication reconciliation.

Emerging Concepts and Future Directions

Personalized Fluid Therapy

Biomarker-guided approaches:

Natriuretic peptides for volume status assessment
Inflammatory markers to guide fluid restriction timing
Genetic polymorphisms affecting fluid handling

Precision monitoring:

Continuous cardiac output monitoring
Real-time assessment of fluid tolerance
Integration of multiple physiological parameters

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Predictive models:

Risk stratification for fluid intolerance
Optimal timing for fluid de-escalation
Personalized fluid responsiveness prediction

Decision support systems:

Real-time guidance for fluid management
Integration of clinical and monitoring data
Outcome prediction models

Novel Therapeutic Approaches

Fluid alternatives:

Balanced crystalloids vs normal saline
Human albumin in specific populations
Synthetic colloids (limited role)

Adjunctive therapies:

Vasopressin analogues to reduce fluid needs
Inotropic support in fluid-intolerant patients
Regional perfusion techniques

Teaching Hack 💡

The future of fluid management is "precision medicine" - using multiple data points to provide individualized therapy rather than one-size-fits-all protocols.

Practical Clinical Pearls and Hacks

Assessment Pearls

The "Dry Weight" Concept
- Establish patient's baseline weight when possible
- 10% weight gain suggests significant fluid accumulation
- Daily weights are more accurate than fluid balance calculations
Physical Examination Hacks
- Sacral edema in bedridden patients is often missed
- Hepatojugular reflux is more sensitive than JVD for volume assessment
- Skin tenting over the subclavicular area is more reliable than hand/forearm
Laboratory Clues
- Rising hemoglobin may indicate hemoconcentration/dehydration
- BUN/Creatinine ratio >20 suggests volume depletion
- Decreasing albumin with stable nutrition suggests capillary leak

Oyster Warning ⚠️

Don't rely solely on physical examination for volume assessment in critically ill patients - inflammation, positioning, and medications can significantly affect traditional signs.

Monitoring Pearls

The "Trend is Your Friend" Principle
- Single measurements are less valuable than trends
- Look at patterns over 6-12 hour periods
- Consider circadian variations in hemodynamic parameters
Integration Approach
- Combine static and dynamic parameters
- Use multiple modalities when available
- Clinical context always trumps isolated measurements

Management Pearls

The "Start-Stop-Start" Rule
- Start with adequate initial resuscitation
- Stop when signs of intolerance appear
- Start removal when appropriate
Timing Considerations
- Golden hours (0-6): Liberal resuscitation acceptable
- Silver day (6-24h): Transition to restrictive approach
- Bronze phase (>24h): Focus on de-escalation

Clinical Pearl 🔹

Fluid management is like playing a musical instrument - it requires both technical skill (knowing the parameters) and artistic judgment (interpreting the clinical symphony).

Case-Based Learning Scenarios

Case 1: The Fluid-Responsive but Intolerant Patient

Scenario: 65-year-old male with septic shock, 8 hours post-admission. Has received 4L crystalloid, remains hypotensive. PPV = 15%, but developing bilateral infiltrates on chest X-ray.

Teaching Points:

Fluid responsiveness ≠ fluid benefit
Recognition of early fluid intolerance
When to choose vasopressors over additional fluid

Case 2: The Post-Operative Oliguria Dilemma

Scenario: 70-year-old female, day 2 post-major abdominal surgery. Urine output 0.3 ml/kg/hr, but patient has gained 5 kg since surgery. Creatinine rising.

Teaching Points:

Oliguria in setting of fluid overload
Venous congestion-induced AKI
When diuretics are appropriate in AKI

Case 3: The ARDS De-escalation Challenge

Scenario: 45-year-old with ARDS, day 5 of mechanical ventilation. Hemodynamically stable but 10L positive since admission. P/F ratio 150.

Teaching Points:

Conservative fluid strategy in ARDS
Balancing fluid removal with hemodynamic stability
Use of ultrafiltration techniques

Conclusion

Fluid stewardship in critical care has evolved from a simplistic "wet vs. dry" paradigm to a sophisticated understanding of fluid pharmacokinetics, tolerance, and individualized patient needs. The modern intensivist must master not only the techniques of fluid responsiveness assessment but also recognize the equally important concepts of fluid intolerance and the appropriate timing of fluid de-escalation.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports a restrictive approach to fluid management once the initial resuscitation phase is complete. This requires a fundamental shift in mindset - from "when in doubt, give fluid" to "when in doubt, withhold fluid." Advanced monitoring technologies provide the tools to make these decisions with greater precision, but clinical judgment remains paramount.

Future directions point toward personalized fluid therapy, incorporating biomarkers, artificial intelligence, and precision monitoring to optimize outcomes for individual patients. However, the fundamental principles of fluid stewardship - careful assessment, judicious administration, close monitoring, and timely de-escalation - will remain the cornerstone of excellent critical care practice.

The journey from fluid responsiveness to fluid intolerance represents more than a semantic shift; it embodies a mature understanding of the complex pathophysiology of critical illness and our responsibility to "first, do no harm" in our fluid management decisions.

Key Take-Home Messages

Fluid responsiveness does not equal fluid benefit
Less is more once the resuscitation phase is complete
Use multiple monitoring modalities for comprehensive assessment
Recognize and act upon early signs of fluid intolerance
Plan de-escalation as carefully as initial resuscitation
Consider renal outcomes in all fluid management decisions

References

Malbrain MLNG, Marik PE, Witters I, et al. Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014;46(5):361-80.
Hjortrup PB, Haase N, Bundgaard H, et al. Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock after initial management: the CLASSIC randomised, parallel-group, multicentre feasibility trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(11):1695-1705.
Silversides JA, Major E, Ferguson AJ, et al. Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(2):155-170.
Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, et al. Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2263-2274.
Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):829-839.
Marik PE, Linde-Zwirble WT, Bittner EA, et al. Fluid administration in severe sepsis and septic shock, patterns and outcomes: an analysis of a large national database. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(5):625-632.
Tigabu BM, Davari M, Kebriaeezadeh A, Mojtahedzadeh M. Fluid volume, fluid balance and patient outcome in severe sepsis and septic shock: A systematic review. J Crit Care. 2018;48:153-159.
Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, et al. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564-76.
Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, et al. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1529-37.
Vincent JL, Cecconi M, De Backer D. The fluid challenge. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):703.

Disclosure: No conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding: No external funding received.

Monday, August 25, 2025