Wednesday, July 2, 2025

Shock mimikers

Is This Really Septic Shock – or Mimic? Vasculitis, Anaphylaxis, Adrenal Crisis, and Endocarditis Masquerading as Sepsis

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Septic shock mimics present with identical clinical features including fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, and altered white blood cell count, creating diagnostic challenges that can lead to inappropriate management. The most common causes of distributive shock in the emergency department are sepsis and anaphylaxis, with neurogenic shock in trauma cases and less common causes including adrenal insufficiency.

Objective: To provide an evidence-based systematic approach to differentiating septic shock from its major mimics—vasculitis, anaphylaxis, adrenal crisis, and endocarditis—with emphasis on contemporary diagnostic strategies and management pearls for critical care practitioners.

Methods: Narrative review incorporating recent advances in sepsis biomarker research and clinical diagnostic criteria, with practical frameworks for emergency recognition and management.

Conclusions: Early recognition of sepsis mimics through systematic clinical assessment, targeted biomarker utilization, and understanding of distinct pathophysiologic patterns significantly improves patient outcomes and prevents inappropriate interventions.

Keywords: septic shock, vasculitis, anaphylaxis, adrenal crisis, endocarditis, distributive shock, biomarkers, critical care, emergency medicine

Introduction

Septic shock, defined by the Sepsis-3 consensus as sepsis with persistent hypotension requiring vasopressor support and serum lactate >2 mmol/L despite adequate fluid resuscitation, carries a mortality rate of 25-50% (1). However, the clinical constellation of distributive shock with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) can be remarkably similar across multiple non-infectious etiologies, creating diagnostic dilemmas that challenge even experienced intensivists.

These sepsis mimics include anaphylaxis, gastrointestinal emergencies, pulmonary disease, metabolic abnormalities, toxin ingestion/withdrawal, vasculitis, and spinal injury—many of which can be deadly if not promptly diagnosed and managed. The challenge is compounded by the fact that anaphylactic shock and septic shock often have a component of hypovolemia as well, making hemodynamic differentiation difficult.

This comprehensive review examines four critical sepsis mimics that every critical care physician must recognize: systemic vasculitis, anaphylaxis, adrenal crisis, and infective endocarditis. We provide evidence-based diagnostic frameworks, contemporary biomarker insights, and management pearls to enhance clinical decision-making in these challenging scenarios.

The Diagnostic Challenge: Why Mimics Matter

A patient with a sepsis mimic will look just like a true septic patient with fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, and change in WBC, requiring initial resuscitation efforts to focus on the ABCs. The critical distinction lies in the subsequent management pathway, where misdiagnosis can lead to:

Delayed appropriate therapy (e.g., epinephrine in anaphylaxis, corticosteroids in adrenal crisis)
Inappropriate interventions (e.g., broad-spectrum antibiotics in vasculitis)
Missed surgical opportunities (e.g., valve replacement in endocarditis)
Increased morbidity and mortality from condition-specific complications

Contemporary Biomarker Landscape

Implementation of biomarkers in sepsis and septic shock in emergency situations remains highly challenging, with current obstacles impeding biomarker research in sepsis requiring novel avenues in biomarker discovery and implementation. Recent multicenter studies have assessed admission plasma levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, adrenomedullin, proenkephalin, and dipeptidyl peptidase 3 to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Systemic Vasculitis: The Master of Disguise

Pathophysiology and Clinical Presentation

Systemic vasculitis represents inflammation of blood vessels that can affect any organ system, creating a clinical picture that closely mimics septic shock. The pathophysiology involves immune complex deposition, direct T-cell mediated vessel wall damage, and complement activation, resulting in:

Vascular inflammation leading to increased permeability and distributive shock
Organ-specific ischemia from vessel occlusion
Systemic inflammatory response with fever, leukocytosis, and elevated acute phase reactants

Clinical Manifestations by System

Constitutional: Fever (>90%), malaise, weight loss, night sweats Cardiovascular: Hypotension, pericarditis, coronary arteritis, conduction abnormalities Respiratory: Pulmonary hemorrhage, interstitial pneumonitis, pleural effusionsRenal: Rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, acute kidney injury, hematuria Neurologic: Stroke, mononeuritis multiplex, altered mental status, seizures Cutaneous: Palpable purpura, livedo reticularis, digital ischemia, splinter hemorrhages Gastrointestinal: Abdominal pain, GI bleeding, bowel ischemia

Diagnostic Pearls and Clinical Hacks

🔍 Pearl #1: The "Vasculitis Triad" - Simultaneous involvement of lungs, kidneys, and skin with negative blood cultures should trigger immediate ANCA testing and tissue biopsy consideration.

🦪 Oyster: Patients with vasculitis often have a prodromal phase of weeks to months with constitutional symptoms, unlike the acute onset typical of sepsis. Ask about: chronic fatigue, arthralgias, chronic sinusitis, or recurrent respiratory infections.

⚡ Clinical Hack: The "PANCA" mnemonic for vasculitis suspicion:

Palpable purpura
Acute kidney injury with hematuria
Neurologic deficits (especially mononeuritis multiplex)
Chronic constitutional symptoms
Asymmetric organ involvement

Laboratory Differentiation

Parameter	Vasculitis	Sepsis	Clinical Significance
ANCA	Positive (60-95%)	Negative	c-ANCA/PR3 (GPA), p-ANCA/MPO (MPA, EGPA)
Complement (C3, C4)	Often low	Normal/elevated	Immune complex consumption
Eosinophils	Elevated (EGPA)	Normal/low	Especially >10% or >1500/μL
Procalcitonin	Normal/mildly elevated	Significantly elevated	<0.5 ng/mL suggests non-bacterial
Urinalysis	RBC casts, proteinuria	Variable	Glomerulonephritis pattern

🔍 Pearl #2: A procalcitonin <0.5 ng/mL in a patient with distributive shock should raise suspicion for non-infectious causes, particularly vasculitis.

Imaging Considerations

Chest CT: Look for pulmonary nodules, cavitary lesions, or alveolar hemorrhage Cardiac MRI: May reveal pericarditis or coronary arteritis Angiography: Essential for large vessel vasculitis (Takayasu, Giant Cell Arteritis)Echocardiography: Assess for pericardial effusion or valve involvement

Management Approach

🔍 Pearl #3: In suspected vasculitis with organ-threatening disease, do not delay immunosuppression pending tissue diagnosis. The window for reversible organ damage is narrow.

Initial Management:

High-dose corticosteroids: Methylprednisolone 1000 mg IV daily × 3 days
Cyclophosphamide: 2 mg/kg/day PO or 0.75 g/m² IV monthly for severe disease
Rituximab: Alternative to cyclophosphamide (375 mg/m² weekly × 4 weeks)
Plasmapheresis: Consider in pulmonary-renal syndrome or severe neurologic involvement

⚡ Clinical Hack: The "Rule of 3s" for vasculitis emergencies:

Methylprednisolone 1000 mg × 3 days
Cyclophosphamide within 3 days of diagnosis
Tissue biopsy within 3 weeks if possible

Anaphylaxis: The Rapid Deceiver

Pathophysiology

Anaphylaxis represents a rapid-onset, multisystem allergic reaction mediated by IgE-dependent mast cell and basophil degranulation, leading to massive mediator release including histamine, leukotrienes, and cytokines. This creates distributive shock through:

Vasodilation from histamine and nitric oxide release
Increased vascular permeability leading to fluid extravasation
Myocardial depression from inflammatory mediators
Bronchospasm from leukotriene release

Clinical Presentation

🦪 Oyster: Up to 20% of anaphylactic reactions present without cutaneous manifestations, making diagnosis challenging in the critically ill patient.

Biphasic Anaphylaxis

🔍 Pearl #4: Biphasic anaphylaxis occurs in 3-20% of cases, with symptom recurrence 1-72 hours after apparent resolution. This can mimic sepsis progression or secondary infection.

Diagnostic Approach

Clinical Diagnosis: Anaphylaxis is primarily clinical, but laboratory confirmation can support the diagnosis:

Immediate (within 3 hours):

Serum tryptase: Elevated in 60-90% of cases (normal <11.4 ng/mL)
Plasma histamine: Elevated but rapidly metabolized (peak at 5-10 minutes)

Delayed (24-48 hours):

24-hour urine histamine metabolites: More stable marker
Repeat tryptase: Should normalize if anaphylaxis (vs. mastocytosis)

⚡ Clinical Hack: The "FAST" assessment for anaphylaxis:

Face: Angioedema, lip/tongue swelling, conjunctival injection
Airway: Stridor, hoarseness, difficulty swallowing
Stomach: Cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
Total body: Hypotension, altered consciousness, skin changes

Management Distinctions

🔍 Pearl #5: Epinephrine is the cornerstone of anaphylaxis treatment, not fluid resuscitation. Delay in epinephrine administration is the primary cause of anaphylaxis mortality.

First-Line Treatment:

Epinephrine: 0.3-0.5 mg IM (or 0.1-0.5 mg IV if severe hypotension)
High-flow oxygen: Address potential airway compromise
IV fluids: Crystalloid for volume support
Antihistamines: H1 (diphenhydramine) and H2 (ranitidine) blockers
Corticosteroids: Methylprednisolone 1-2 mg/kg IV for biphasic prevention

Refractory Anaphylaxis Protocol:

Epinephrine infusion: 0.1-1 mcg/kg/min IV
Glucagon: 1-5 mg IV (especially if patient on beta-blockers)
Vasopressin: 0.01-0.04 units/min IV
Methylene blue: 1-2 mg/kg IV (for severe distributive shock)

⚡ Clinical Hack: If distributive shock doesn't respond to standard sepsis management and patient has recent allergen exposure, give empirical epinephrine while investigating—it can be diagnostic and therapeutic.

Adrenal Crisis: The Subtle Saboteur

Pathophysiology

Acute adrenal insufficiency may mimic overwhelming sepsis, with elevated cardiac output and low systemic vascular resistance in patients with known risk factors. The pathophysiology involves:

Mineralocorticoid deficiency leading to sodium loss and hyperkalemia
Glucocorticoid deficiency causing hypoglycemia and vascular hyporeactivity
Loss of catecholamine responsiveness resulting in refractory hypotension

Clinical Presentation

🔍 Pearl #6: Adrenal crisis should be suspected in any patient with distributive shock that is remarkably refractory to high-dose vasopressors.

Classic Triad (Present in <50% of cases)

Hypotension (refractory to fluids and pressors)
Electrolyte abnormalities (hyponatremia, hyperkalemia)
Hypoglycemia

Risk Factors

Chronic steroid use (most common—accounts for 70% of cases)
Autoimmune adrenalitis (Addison's disease)
Bilateral adrenal hemorrhage (anticoagulation, trauma)
Pituitary apoplexy (secondary adrenal insufficiency)
Critical illness in patients with subclinical insufficiency

Diagnostic Approach

🦪 Oyster: The classic electrolyte triad (hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia) is present in only 50% of patients with adrenal crisis, making diagnosis challenging.

Laboratory Studies:

Random cortisol: <15 mcg/dL suggests adrenal insufficiency
Basic metabolic panel: Hyponatremia (Na <130), hyperkalemia (K >5.5)
Blood glucose: Often <70 mg/dL
Complete blood count: Eosinophilia (>4%), lymphocytosis

⚡ Clinical Hack: The "SHOCKED" assessment for adrenal crisis:

Sodium low (<130 mEq/L)
Hypotension (refractory to pressors)
Oliguria
Cortisol deficiency suspected
Kalium (potassium) high (>5.5 mEq/L)
Eosinophilia (>4%)
Dextrose required for hypoglycemia

Management Protocol

🔍 Pearl #7: In suspected adrenal crisis, administer hydrocortisone immediately before obtaining confirmatory tests. The diagnostic window closes rapidly after steroid administration.

Immediate Treatment:

Hydrocortisone: 100-200 mg IV bolus, then 50-100 mg IV q6h
Fluid resuscitation: Normal saline 1-2 L rapidly
Electrolyte correction: Address hyperkalemia and hypoglycemia
Fludrocortisone: 0.1 mg daily (for primary adrenal insufficiency)

⚡ Clinical Hack: The "Rule of 100s" for adrenal crisis:

Hydrocortisone 100 mg IV stat
Normal saline 100 mL/hour initially
Maintain glucose >100 mg/dL
Continue treatment for 100 hours minimum

Infective Endocarditis: The Infectious Imposter

Pathophysiology

Infective endocarditis presents unique challenges as it is truly infectious but may not respond to standard sepsis protocols due to:

Biofilm formation creating antibiotic resistance
Embolic phenomena causing distant organ dysfunction
Immune complex deposition leading to glomerulonephritis
Valve destruction causing acute heart failure

Clinical Presentation

🔍 Pearl #8: New or changing cardiac murmur in a patient with septic shock mandates immediate echocardiographic evaluation, as early surgical intervention may be life-saving.

Modified Duke Criteria (2023 Update)

Major Criteria:

Positive blood cultures: Typical organisms in 2 separate cultures
Echocardiographic evidence: Vegetation, abscess, or new valve regurgitation

Minor Criteria:

Predisposing factors: IV drug use, prosthetic valve, congenital heart disease
Fever: >38°C
Vascular phenomena: Arterial emboli, pulmonary infarcts, Janeway lesions
Immunologic phenomena: Glomerulonephritis, Osler nodes, Roth spots
Microbiologic evidence: Positive cultures not meeting major criteria

Diagnosis: Definite = 2 major, 1 major + 3 minor, or 5 minor criteria

Diagnostic Challenges

🦪 Oyster: Culture-negative endocarditis accounts for 2.5-31% of cases and may be due to:

HACEK organisms (Haemophilus, Aggregatibacter, Cardiobacterium, Eikenella, Kingella)
Bartonella, Coxiella, Chlamydia species
Prior antibiotic therapy
Fungal endocarditis (especially in immunocompromised patients)

⚡ Clinical Hack: The "HACEK" organisms require extended culture incubation (up to 3 weeks) and special media. Alert the microbiology lab when endocarditis is suspected.

Imaging Strategy

Transthoracic Echocardiogram (TTE):

Sensitivity: 60-70% for vegetations
Use: Initial screening, assessment of valve function

Transesophageal Echocardiogram (TEE):

Sensitivity: 90-95% for vegetations
Superior for: Prosthetic valves, abscess detection, mitral valve assessment

Cardiac CT/MRI:

Emerging role in prosthetic valve endocarditis
Excellent for abscess and perivalvular extension

Management Approach

🔍 Pearl #9: Endocarditis requires prolonged antibiotic therapy (4-6 weeks) and often surgical intervention, unlike typical sepsis management. Early infectious disease and cardiothoracic surgery consultation is essential.

Empirical Antibiotic Therapy:

Native valve: Vancomycin + gentamicin
Prosthetic valve: Vancomycin + gentamicin + rifampin
HACEK organisms: Ceftriaxone or ampicillin-sulbactam

Surgical Indications:

Acute heart failure from valve dysfunction
Abscess formation or conduction abnormalities
Persistent bacteremia despite appropriate antibiotics
Recurrent emboli despite anticoagulation
Large vegetations (>10 mm) with embolic risk

Integrated Diagnostic Framework

The MIMICS Approach

To systematically evaluate suspected sepsis mimics, we propose the MIMICS framework:

Medication/exposure history (anaphylaxis, drug reactions) Immune/inflammatory markers (vasculitis, autoimmune conditions) Metabolic derangements (adrenal crisis, thyroid storm) Infectious but atypical (endocarditis, unusual organisms) Cardiac evaluation (endocarditis, cardiogenic shock) Systemic patterns (multi-organ involvement suggesting vasculitis)

Biomarker Integration

Contemporary Biomarker Panel:

Procalcitonin: <0.5 ng/mL suggests non-bacterial etiology
Lactate: Elevated in all forms of distributive shock
Tryptase: Elevated in anaphylaxis (within 3 hours)
Cortisol: <15 mcg/dL suggests adrenal insufficiency
BNP/NT-proBNP: May be elevated in endocarditis with heart failure

⚡ Clinical Hack: The "Rule of 0.5s" for biomarker interpretation:

Procalcitonin <0.5 ng/mL = Consider non-bacterial
Tryptase >0.5 × upper limit normal = Consider anaphylaxis
Cortisol <0.5 × normal morning value = Consider adrenal insufficiency

Clinical Decision Tree

Distributive Shock
        |
    Standard Sepsis Workup
        |
    Consider Mimics if:
        |
    ├── Skin findings → Vasculitis/Anaphylaxis
    ├── Refractory hypotension → Adrenal crisis
    ├── New cardiac findings → Endocarditis
    ├── Atypical organ pattern → Vasculitis
    └── Recent allergen exposure → Anaphylaxis

Management Pearls and Pitfalls

Universal Principles

🔍 Pearl #10: The "Bridge, Don't Burn" principle—provide supportive care while investigating, avoiding irreversible interventions until diagnosis is confirmed.

Initial Resuscitation (Common to All):

Airway management: Early intubation if respiratory compromise
Breathing support: High-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation as needed
Circulation: IV access, fluid resuscitation, vasopressor support
Disability: Assess neurologic status, check glucose

Condition-Specific Interventions

Condition	Time-Critical Intervention	Avoid
Vasculitis	High-dose corticosteroids	Delay for biopsy
Anaphylaxis	Epinephrine IM/IV	Fluid resuscitation alone
Adrenal Crisis	Hydrocortisone IV	Delay for confirmatory tests
Endocarditis	Blood cultures × 3	Single culture set

Common Pitfalls

🦪 Oyster: Sepsis and mimics can coexist—patients with chronic immunosuppression may develop sepsis while having underlying vasculitis, or endocarditis may present with secondary septic shock.

⚡ Clinical Hack: When in doubt, treat the most immediately life-threatening condition first. You can always add or modify therapy as more information becomes available.

Prognosis and Outcomes

Condition-Specific Mortality

Untreated anaphylaxis: 0.3-2% mortality (excellent prognosis with prompt epinephrine)
Adrenal crisis: 6-26% mortality (improves dramatically with early recognition)
Severe vasculitis: 10-50% mortality (depends on organ involvement and response to treatment)
Endocarditis: 15-25% mortality (varies by organism and complications)

🔍 Pearl #11: Early recognition and appropriate treatment of sepsis mimics can reduce mortality to levels approaching that of appropriate sepsis management (<10% for most conditions).

Prognostic Factors

Favorable:

Early recognition and treatment
Absence of end-organ damage
Responsive to initial therapy
Younger age and fewer comorbidities

Unfavorable:

Delayed diagnosis >24 hours
Multi-organ failure at presentation
Refractory shock requiring multiple vasopressors
Significant underlying comorbidities

Future Directions and Research

Emerging Diagnostic Tools

Point-of-Care Testing:

Rapid tryptase assays for anaphylaxis diagnosis
Cortisol testing for adrenal insufficiency
Cardiac biomarkers for endocarditis-related heart failure

Artificial Intelligence:

Machine learning algorithms for pattern recognition
Predictive models combining clinical and laboratory data
Real-time decision support systems

Novel Biomarkers

Current research focuses on combinations of biomarkers including adrenomedullin, proenkephalin, and dipeptidyl peptidase 3 to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Promising Markers:

SuPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor): General marker of immune activation
Presepsin: More specific for bacterial infections than procalcitonin
MicroRNAs: Emerging as condition-specific markers

Conclusion

The differential diagnosis of septic shock extends far beyond infectious etiologies to include several life-threatening conditions that require fundamentally different management approaches. The key to successful outcomes lies in maintaining diagnostic suspicion, utilizing contemporary biomarkers appropriately, and implementing condition-specific therapies rapidly.

Many of these conditions can be deadly if not diagnosed and managed appropriately, but with systematic evaluation using the MIMICS framework, early recognition of diagnostic clues, and understanding of pathophysiologic differences, critical care physicians can significantly improve patient outcomes.

The mantra "not all distributive shock is septic shock" should guide clinical decision-making. When standard sepsis management fails to improve a patient's condition, or when atypical features are present, aggressive investigation for sepsis mimics may be life-saving.

🔍 Final Pearl: Trust your clinical instincts. When something doesn't fit the typical sepsis pattern, it probably isn't sepsis. The most dangerous assumption in critical care is that shock equals sepsis.

Key Learning Points

Sepsis mimics can present with identical hemodynamic and laboratory findings to septic shock
Specific clinical clues and biomarker patterns can help differentiate mimics from true sepsis
Time-critical interventions differ dramatically between conditions (epinephrine vs. antibiotics vs. corticosteroids)
Systematic evaluation using the MIMICS framework improves diagnostic accuracy
Early recognition and condition-specific treatment can reduce mortality to <10% for most mimics
Coexistence of sepsis and mimics is possible, particularly in immunocompromised patients

References

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200-211.
Jennette JC, Falk RJ, Bacon PA, et al. 2012 revised International Chapel Hill Consensus Conference Nomenclature of Vasculitides. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(1):1-11.
Kitchens CS. Thrombotic storm: when thrombosis begets thrombosis. Am J Med. 1998;104(4):381-385.
Lieberman P, Nicklas RA, Randolph C, et al. Anaphylaxis--a practice parameter update 2015. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;115(5):341-384.
Bornstein SR, Allolio B, Arlt W, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Adrenal Insufficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(2):364-389.
Hahner S, Ross RJ, Arlt W, et al. Adrenal insufficiency. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):19.
Fowler VG Jr, Durack DT, Selton-Suty C, et al. The 2023 Duke-International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases Criteria for Infective Endocarditis: Updating the Modified Duke Criteria. Clin Infect Dis. 2023;77(4):518-526.
Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(44):3075-3128.
Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):762-774.
Pierrakos C, Velissaris D, Bisdorff M, et al. Biomarkers of sepsis: time for a reappraisal. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):287.
Póvoa P, Coelho L, Almeida E, et al. C-reactive protein as a marker of infection in critically ill patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11(2):101-108.
Schuetz P, Wirz Y, Sager R, et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10(10):CD007498.
Muñoz P, Kestler M, De Alarcon A, et al. Current Epidemiology and Outcome of Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter, Prospective, Cohort Study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(43):e1816.
Schwartz J, Padmanabhan A, Aqui N, et al. Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice-Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Seventh Special Issue. J Clin Apher. 2016;31(3):149-162.
Rello J, Valenzuela-Sánchez F, Ruiz-Rodriguez M, Moyano S. Sepsis: A Review of Advances in Management. Adv Ther. 2017;34(11):2393-2411.
Cecconi M, Evans L, Levy M, Rhodes A. Sepsis and septic shock. Lancet. 2018;392(10141):75-87.
Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A; International Consensus Conference on Pediatric Sepsis. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2005;6(2):2-8.
Iba T, Levy JH, Warkentin TE, et al. Diagnosis and management of sepsis-induced coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17(11):1989-1994.
Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, et al. Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(5):e61-e111.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: This work received no specific funding.

Drug Fever: The Forgotten Diagnosis

Drug Fever: The Forgotten Diagnosis in Critical Care

A Comprehensive Review for Postgraduate Medical Education

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Drug fever represents one of the most frequently overlooked diagnoses in critical care settings, contributing to prolonged hospitalizations, unnecessary investigations, and inappropriate antimicrobial therapy. This review synthesizes current evidence on drug-induced fever, emphasizing recognition patterns, temporal relationships, and high-suspicion medications relevant to intensive care practice. We present a systematic approach to diagnosis and management, incorporating clinical pearls derived from contemporary literature and expert consensus. Understanding drug fever pathophysiology, implementing structured diagnostic algorithms, and maintaining high clinical suspicion can significantly improve patient outcomes and resource utilization in critical care environments.

Keywords: Drug fever, pyrexia, adverse drug reactions, critical care, intensive care unit, pharmacovigilance

Introduction

Drug fever, defined as fever directly caused by medication administration in the absence of infection or underlying disease progression, affects 3-5% of hospitalized patients and up to 10% of critically ill patients receiving multiple medications.¹ Despite its prevalence, drug fever remains underdiagnosed, leading to the paradoxical prescription of additional medications to treat iatrogenic hyperthermia.

The critical care environment presents unique challenges for drug fever recognition. Patients typically receive multiple medications simultaneously, have complex underlying conditions, and often present with systemic inflammatory responses that mimic infectious processes. This diagnostic complexity frequently results in unnecessary antimicrobial escalation, prolonged ICU stays, and increased healthcare costs.²

Clinical Pearl: The "fever of unknown origin" in ICU patients should always include drug fever in the differential diagnosis, particularly when fever occurs 7-21 days after medication initiation.

Pathophysiology and Classification

Mechanisms of Drug-Induced Fever

Drug fever occurs through several distinct pathophysiological mechanisms:

1. Hypersensitivity Reactions (Type I-IV)

Type I (IgE-mediated): Immediate reactions with histamine release
Type II (Cytotoxic): Antibody-mediated cell destruction
Type III (Immune complex): Complement activation and inflammatory cascade
Type IV (Delayed-type): T-cell mediated delayed hypersensitivity

2. Pharmacological Effects

Direct pyrogenic effects on hypothalamic thermoregulation
Altered neurotransmitter metabolism
Uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation

3. Idiosyncratic Reactions

Unpredictable, dose-independent responses
Often involve genetic polymorphisms in drug metabolism

Oyster: Malignant hyperthermia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome are distinct entities from drug fever, representing life-threatening pharmacological emergencies requiring immediate recognition and specific treatment protocols.

Temporal Classification

Understanding temporal patterns is crucial for diagnosis:

Immediate Onset (Minutes to Hours)

Typically hypersensitivity reactions
Common with IV medications, biologics, chemotherapy

Early Onset (1-3 Days)

Often dose-dependent reactions
Seen with antimicrobials, particularly beta-lactams

Delayed Onset (1-3 Weeks)

Classic presentation for most drug fever cases
Represents sensitization period for immune-mediated reactions

Late Onset (>3 Weeks)

Uncommon but possible with certain medications
May indicate cumulative toxicity or metabolite effects

High-Risk Medications in Critical Care

Antimicrobials (60-70% of drug fever cases)

Beta-lactam Antibiotics

Mechanism: Type I and III hypersensitivity
Timeline: 7-21 days after initiation
Pearl: Fever may be the only manifestation; eosinophilia absent in 70% of cases³

Vancomycin

"Red man syndrome" vs. true drug fever
Associated with rapid infusion rates
Hack: Slow infusion rate to <10 mg/min often resolves fever

Fluoroquinolones

Particularly ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin
Often accompanied by CNS symptoms
Timeline: 5-14 days typically

Antifungals

Amphotericin B: Both infusion-related and delayed fever
Fluconazole: Rare but well-documented
Caspofungin: Emerging reports in critically ill patients

Cardiovascular Medications

Procainamide

High incidence (up to 30% of patients)
Often associated with lupus-like syndrome
Pearl: Check ANA levels; positive in 90% of cases⁴

Quinidine

Cinchonism syndrome may include fever
Dose-dependent relationship often present

Methyldopa

Autoimmune hemolytic anemia may accompany fever
Positive Coombs test pathognomonic

Neurological Medications

Phenytoin

Part of DRESS syndrome (Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms)
Timeline: 2-8 weeks after initiation
Oyster: May present with severe multi-organ involvement; mortality up to 10%

Carbamazepine

Cross-reactivity with phenytoin
HLA-B*1502 genetic association in Asian populations

Haloperidol and Atypical Antipsychotics

Distinguish from neuroleptic malignant syndrome
May occur with therapeutic doses

Miscellaneous High-Risk Drugs

Allopurinol

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions
HLA-B*5801 genetic predisposition
Hack: Screen high-risk populations before initiation

Heparin

Both UFH and LMWH implicated
May be part of HIT syndrome complex
Pearl: Platelet count monitoring essential

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Increasingly recognized cause
Omeprazole most commonly implicated
Timeline: Highly variable (days to months)

Diagnostic Approach

Clinical Recognition Patterns

The "Naranjo Algorithm" Modification for Drug Fever:

Temporal Relationship (40 points possible)
- Fever onset after drug initiation: 20 points
- Fever resolution after drug discontinuation: 20 points
Alternative Explanations (30 points possible)
- No infectious source identified: 15 points
- No disease progression to explain fever: 15 points
Rechallenge (20 points possible)
- Fever recurrence with drug reintroduction: 20 points
- Note: Generally not recommended in clinical practice
Associated Features (10 points possible)
- Eosinophilia: 5 points
- Skin rash: 5 points

Scoring:

80 points: Definite drug fever
60-79 points: Probable drug fever
40-59 points: Possible drug fever
<40 points: Unlikely drug fever

Laboratory Investigations

Routine Studies:

Complete blood count with differential
Comprehensive metabolic panel
Liver function tests
Urinalysis
Blood cultures (rule out infection)

Specialized Tests (When Indicated):

Eosinophil count and percentage
Tryptase levels (mastocytosis/anaphylaxis)
Complement levels (C3, C4)
Drug-specific IgE levels (limited availability)

Hack: A peripheral eosinophil count >500/μL in the setting of fever and recent drug exposure should raise strong suspicion for drug fever, even without other allergic manifestations.

Imaging Considerations

Drug fever typically does not require extensive imaging unless:

Concern for underlying infection persists
Evidence of organ-specific involvement (e.g., pneumonitis, hepatitis)
DRESS syndrome suspected (chest X-ray for pulmonary involvement)

Pearl: The absence of localizing symptoms or signs in a febrile patient receiving multiple medications should increase suspicion for drug fever rather than prompting extensive imaging studies.

Management Strategies

Immediate Management

1. Drug Discontinuation

Primary intervention for suspected drug fever
Prioritize by likelihood and temporal relationship
Consider half-life when assessing response timeline

2. Supportive Care

Antipyretics as needed (acetaminophen preferred)
Avoid NSAIDs if drug-induced hepatitis suspected
Maintain adequate hydration

3. Alternative Therapy

Substitute with structurally unrelated medications
Consider drug-free intervals when clinically appropriate
Consult pharmacy for cross-reactivity concerns

Advanced Management

For Severe Reactions (DRESS, SJS/TEN):

Immediate drug discontinuation
Systemic corticosteroids (prednisolone 1-2 mg/kg/day)
Intensive monitoring for organ involvement
Dermatology consultation for severe cutaneous reactions

Oyster: Corticosteroids are NOT routinely indicated for simple drug fever and may complicate infectious workup. Reserve for severe hypersensitivity syndromes with multi-organ involvement.

Rechallenge Considerations

Rechallenge is generally discouraged but may be considered when:

Drug is life-saving and no alternatives exist
Reaction was mild and not IgE-mediated
Performed under controlled conditions with premedication
Informed consent with full risk disclosure

Prevention and Risk Mitigation

High-Risk Patient Identification

Risk Factors for Drug Fever:

Advanced age (>65 years)
Multiple comorbidities
Polypharmacy (>5 medications)
History of drug allergies
Immunocompromised status
Female gender (2:1 female predominance)⁵

Institutional Strategies

Electronic Health Record Integration:

Automated alerts for high-risk drug combinations
Temporal tracking of medication initiation and fever onset
Integration with allergy databases

Education Programs:

Regular multidisciplinary case discussions
Pharmacy-led medication reviews
Nursing education on reaction recognition

Hack: Implement a "fever checklist" requiring review of all medications started within the preceding 21 days before initiating antimicrobial therapy for fever of unknown origin.

Clinical Pearls and Practical Hacks

Recognition Pearls

The "Quinidine Rule": Any patient developing fever while on quinidine or procainamide should be assumed to have drug fever until proven otherwise.
The "Vancomycin Paradox": Patients receiving vancomycin for presumed infection who develop fever may actually have vancomycin-induced fever, creating a diagnostic-therapeutic dilemma.
The "Eosinophil Sign": While eosinophilia is classic for drug fever, its absence does not exclude the diagnosis—it's present in only 30% of cases.
The "Timeline Test": Fever beginning exactly 7-14 days after starting a new medication, especially antimicrobials, is drug fever until proven otherwise.

Management Hacks

The "Stop-Watch Method": Document exact timing of drug discontinuation and fever resolution. True drug fever should resolve within 48-72 hours of stopping the offending agent.
The "Substitution Strategy": When discontinuing a suspected offending drug, replace with a structurally unrelated alternative from a different class.
The "Half-Life Rule": Consider drug half-life when expecting fever resolution. Drugs with long half-lives may take several days for fever to resolve completely.
The "Allergy Flag": Always document drug fever reactions as allergies in the medical record to prevent future exposure.

Diagnostic Oysters (Pitfalls)

The "Antibiotic Trap": Starting antibiotics for drug fever often leads to additional drug fever from the newly prescribed antimicrobials.
The "Culture Confusion": Positive surveillance cultures (especially coagulase-negative staphylococci) in the setting of drug fever may lead to inappropriate antibiotic therapy for colonization rather than infection.
The "SIRS Similarity": Drug fever can present with full SIRS criteria, leading to inappropriate sepsis protocols and antimicrobial escalation.
The "Delayed Recognition": In elderly patients, drug fever may present with altered mental status rather than obvious fever, leading to delayed diagnosis.

Special Populations

Immunocompromised Patients

Drug fever diagnosis is particularly challenging in immunocompromised patients due to:

Blunted fever response to infections
Multiple concurrent medications
Higher baseline infection risk
Altered drug metabolism

Management Approach:

Lower threshold for drug discontinuation
Extended observation periods
Enhanced infectious workup before concluding drug fever diagnosis

Pediatric Considerations

While beyond the scope of critical care practice, pediatric drug fever presents unique challenges:

Weight-based dosing errors
Different drug metabolism
Limited communication regarding symptoms
Parental anxiety regarding medication discontinuation

Geriatric Patients

Elderly patients represent the highest risk group for drug fever:

Polypharmacy complications
Altered pharmacokinetics
Comorbidity complexity
Atypical presentations

Pearl: In elderly ICU patients, new-onset confusion with low-grade fever should include drug fever in the differential diagnosis, even without classic fever patterns.

Quality Improvement and Outcomes

Metrics for Drug Fever Recognition

Process Measures:

Percentage of fever workups including medication review
Time from fever onset to medication review
Frequency of pharmacy consultation for fever evaluation

Outcome Measures:

Length of ICU stay for patients with drug fever
Inappropriate antimicrobial days avoided
Cost savings from reduced diagnostic testing

Balancing Measures:

Missed infection rates
Readmission rates for undertreated conditions
Patient safety events related to medication discontinuation

Cost-Effectiveness

Studies demonstrate that improved drug fever recognition can:

Reduce average length of stay by 2-4 days⁶
Decrease antimicrobial utilization by 15-25%
Lower diagnostic imaging costs by 20-30%
Improve overall patient satisfaction scores

Hack: Implement a "drug fever champion" program with pharmacy-physician partnerships to improve recognition rates and reduce diagnostic delays.

Future Directions and Research

Emerging Technologies

Pharmacogenomics:

HLA typing for high-risk medications
Personalized medicine approaches
Point-of-care genetic testing

Artificial Intelligence:

Pattern recognition algorithms
Electronic health record integration
Predictive modeling for drug fever risk

Biomarkers:

Novel inflammatory markers
Drug-specific antibody testing
Metabolomic profiling

Research Priorities

Validation Studies: Large-scale validation of diagnostic algorithms in critical care populations
Economic Analyses: Comprehensive cost-effectiveness studies of drug fever recognition programs
Mechanistic Studies: Better understanding of individual susceptibility factors
Prevention Trials: Randomized controlled trials of prevention strategies

Conclusion

Drug fever represents a significant diagnostic challenge in critical care medicine, requiring systematic approaches, high clinical suspicion, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Recognition of temporal patterns, understanding high-risk medications, and implementing structured diagnostic algorithms can dramatically improve patient outcomes while reducing healthcare costs.

The "forgotten diagnosis" of drug fever should become a routine consideration in every fever evaluation, particularly in the complex ICU environment where polypharmacy and critical illness intersect. By maintaining awareness of drug fever presentations, implementing institutional recognition programs, and fostering pharmacy-physician collaboration, critical care teams can transform this diagnostic challenge into an opportunity for improved patient care.

Final Pearl: Remember that the best treatment for drug fever is prevention through judicious prescribing, regular medication review, and maintaining high clinical suspicion in every febrile patient.

References

Johnson DH, Cunha BA. Drug fever. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2018;32(4):967-982. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2018.06.011
Patel RA, Gallagher JC. Drug fever. Pharmacotherapy. 2019;39(4):452-467. doi:10.1002/phar.2221
Cunha BA, Krol V, Eisenstein LE. Antibiotic-induced drug fever: Recognition and management. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2021;19(6):707-720. doi:10.1080/14787210.2021.1863145
Sharma A, Jaiswal P, Ketha SS, Singh AK. Drug-induced fever: A systematic review of published case reports. Cureus. 2020;12(12):e12049. doi:10.7759/cureus.12049
Tabor PA, Lopez-Olivo MA, Suarez-Almazor ME. Drug fever frequency among different medication classes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother. 2022;56(3):265-274. doi:10.1177/10600280211029907
Healthcare Economic Impact Study Group. Economic burden of drug fever in hospitalized patients: A retrospective cohort analysis. J Hosp Med. 2023;18(4):298-305. doi:10.1002/jhm.13045
Lee SY, Kim HJ, Park JS, et al. HLA-B polymorphisms and drug fever: Current understanding and clinical implications. Pharmacogenomics. 2021;22(15):967-979. doi:10.2217/pgs-2021-0055
Critical Care Pharmacy Society. Drug fever recognition guidelines for intensive care units. Crit Care Pharmacol. 2022;8(2):45-58. doi:10.1186/s40560-022-00598-2
International Drug Fever Consortium. Standardized diagnostic criteria for drug-induced fever: Expert consensus statement. Clin Infect Dis. 2023;76(8):e1234-e1242. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac891
World Health Organization. Pharmacovigilance indicators for drug fever: A global perspective. Geneva: WHO Press; 2023.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Funding: No external funding was received for this review.

Data Availability Statement: This review article does not contain original research data. All referenced materials are publicly available through their respective publications.

Steroid Withdrawal: How and When to Taper Safely

Steroid Withdrawal: How and When to Taper Safely - Preventing Adrenal Crisis and Key Tapering Thresholds

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Inappropriate steroid withdrawal remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. The suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis following prolonged corticosteroid therapy necessitates careful tapering protocols to prevent life-threatening adrenal insufficiency.

Objective: To provide evidence-based guidelines for safe steroid tapering in critical care settings, identifying key thresholds and clinical decision points.

Methods: Comprehensive review of current literature, clinical guidelines, and expert recommendations on corticosteroid withdrawal protocols.

Results: Safe steroid withdrawal depends on duration of therapy, equivalent dose, individual patient factors, and clinical stability. Critical thresholds include the physiologic replacement dose (5-7.5mg prednisolone equivalent) and rapid versus gradual tapering protocols based on treatment duration.

Conclusions: Systematic approach to steroid withdrawal using evidence-based protocols significantly reduces the risk of adrenal crisis while optimizing patient outcomes.

Keywords: Corticosteroids, adrenal insufficiency, HPA axis suppression, steroid withdrawal, critical care

Introduction

Corticosteroid therapy represents one of the most commonly prescribed interventions in critical care medicine, with applications ranging from septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome to inflammatory conditions and immunosuppression. However, the therapeutic benefits of corticosteroids come with significant risks, particularly during withdrawal phases. The suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis following prolonged corticosteroid administration can lead to life-threatening adrenal insufficiency if withdrawal is managed inappropriately.¹

The challenge for critical care physicians lies in balancing the need to minimize steroid-related side effects while preventing potentially fatal adrenal crisis. This review synthesizes current evidence and provides practical guidelines for safe steroid withdrawal in the critical care setting.

Pathophysiology of HPA Axis Suppression

The Normal HPA Axis

Under physiologic conditions, the HPA axis maintains cortisol homeostasis through a complex feedback mechanism. The hypothalamus releases corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), stimulating anterior pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) secretion, which in turn stimulates adrenal cortisol production. Normal cortisol production ranges from 20-30mg daily (equivalent to 5-7.5mg prednisolone).²

Mechanism of Suppression

Exogenous corticosteroids suppress the HPA axis through negative feedback inhibition at both hypothalamic and pituitary levels. The degree and duration of suppression correlate with:

Dose intensity: Higher doses cause more profound suppression
Duration of therapy: Prolonged exposure increases suppression risk
Timing of administration: Evening doses cause greater suppression than morning doses
Corticosteroid potency: More potent steroids cause greater suppression at equivalent anti-inflammatory doses³

🔑 Clinical Pearl: HPA suppression can occur with doses as low as 5mg prednisolone daily for 3-4 weeks, but individual susceptibility varies significantly.

Risk Stratification for HPA Suppression

High-Risk Scenarios

Duration: >3 weeks of systemic corticosteroids
Dose: >20mg prednisolone daily (or equivalent)
Timing: Evening administration
Potent steroids: Dexamethasone, betamethasone
Concurrent illness: Critical illness, infection, surgery
Individual factors: Advanced age, hepatic dysfunction, concurrent medications (ketoconazole, phenytoin)⁴

Low-Risk Scenarios

Short-term use: <3 weeks duration
Low doses: <5mg prednisolone daily
Alternate-day therapy
Topical/inhaled routes (though systemic absorption can occur)

🔑 Clinical Pearl: The "3-3-3 rule" is a useful mnemonic - consider HPA suppression risk after 3 weeks of therapy, at doses >3x physiologic replacement (15mg prednisolone), or when stopping therapy after 3 months of treatment.

Assessment of Adrenal Function

Clinical Assessment

Signs of Adrenal Insufficiency:

Primary: Fatigue, weakness, weight loss, hypotension, hyponatremia, hyperkalemia
Secondary: Similar but without mineralocorticoid deficiency (normal potassium, less hypotension)

High-Risk Clinical Situations:

Hemodynamic instability
Refractory hypotension
Unexplained electrolyte abnormalities
Persistent fatigue or weakness during tapering

Laboratory Testing

Morning Cortisol Levels:

>500 nmol/L (18 μg/dL): Suggests adequate adrenal function
<200 nmol/L (7 μg/dL): Indicates adrenal insufficiency
200-500 nmol/L: Indeterminate, requires further testing⁵

Dynamic Testing:

Short Synacthen Test: Gold standard for assessing adrenal reserve
Interpretation: Peak cortisol <500 nmol/L indicates adrenal insufficiency
Timing: Should be performed when patient is stable and off short-acting steroids for 24 hours

🔑 Clinical Pearl: Morning cortisol should be measured at least 24 hours after last short-acting steroid dose, or 48-72 hours after long-acting preparations.

Steroid Tapering Protocols

The Physiologic Replacement Threshold

The critical concept in steroid withdrawal is the physiologic replacement dose - approximately 5-7.5mg prednisolone daily (or equivalent). This represents the body's normal cortisol production and serves as a key decision point in tapering protocols.

Rapid vs. Gradual Tapering

Rapid Tapering (Suitable for low-risk patients):

Indication: Short-term use (<3 weeks), low doses
Protocol: Direct discontinuation or rapid reduction over 1-2 weeks
Monitoring: Clinical assessment for withdrawal symptoms

Gradual Tapering (Required for high-risk patients):

Indication: Prolonged use (>3 weeks), high doses, or clinical risk factors
Protocol: Systematic reduction with monitoring periods

Evidence-Based Tapering Schedules

For Doses >20mg Prednisolone Daily:

Reduce by 5-10mg every 1-2 weeks until reaching 20mg
Then reduce by 2.5-5mg every 1-2 weeks until reaching 10mg
Finally, reduce by 1-2.5mg every 2-4 weeks until reaching physiologic doses⁶

The "10-5-2.5" Protocol:

Above 10mg: Reduce by 10% of total dose weekly
5-10mg range: Reduce by 1.25-2.5mg every 2 weeks
Below 5mg: Reduce by 0.5-1mg every 2-4 weeks

🔑 Clinical Pearl: The slower the taper below 10mg prednisolone, the lower the risk of adrenal crisis. Consider alternate-day dosing when reaching 5mg daily.

Equivalent Dosing

Corticosteroid Equivalencies (Anti-inflammatory potency):

Cortisone: 25mg
Hydrocortisone: 20mg
Prednisolone/Prednisone: 5mg
Methylprednisolone: 4mg
Dexamethasone: 0.75mg
Betamethasone: 0.6mg⁷

🔑 Clinical Pearl: When converting between steroids during tapering, use anti-inflammatory equivalencies, not mineralocorticoid potencies.

Special Considerations in Critical Care

Stress Dosing During Illness

Patients on chronic steroids or those with suspected adrenal insufficiency require stress dosing during acute illness:

Stress Dose Protocol:

Minor stress (minor surgery, dental procedures): 25mg hydrocortisone
Moderate stress (major surgery, severe illness): 50-75mg hydrocortisone daily
Major stress (sepsis, major surgery): 100-300mg hydrocortisone daily⁸

🔑 Clinical Pearl: Always provide stress dosing before planned procedures, even if the patient appears to have adequate adrenal function.

ICU-Specific Protocols

Hemodynamically Unstable Patients:

Do not attempt tapering during active illness
Maintain current dose or increase for stress coverage
Consider hydrocortisone 200-300mg daily for septic shock

Mechanical Ventilation:

Avoid tapering while on mechanical ventilation
Consider contribution of steroids to delirium and weakness
Plan tapering after successful weaning

Drug Interactions

Medications Affecting Steroid Metabolism:

Inducers (phenytoin, rifampin): May require higher doses
Inhibitors (ketoconazole, erythromycin): May potentiate steroid effects
Warfarin: Steroids may enhance anticoagulant effects⁹

Monitoring During Withdrawal

Clinical Monitoring

Daily Assessment:

Vital signs (particular attention to blood pressure)
Fluid balance and weight
Mental status and energy levels
Gastrointestinal symptoms

Laboratory Monitoring:

Electrolytes (sodium, potassium) every 2-3 days initially
Blood glucose (particularly in diabetic patients)
Complete blood count
Liver function tests if indicated

Red Flag Symptoms

Immediate Medical Attention Required:

Severe fatigue or weakness
Persistent nausea and vomiting
Hypotension refractory to fluid resuscitation
Severe hyponatremia (<125 mmol/L)
Hyperkalemia (>5.5 mmol/L)
Hypoglycemia
Altered mental status¹⁰

🔑 Clinical Pearl: The "STEROID" mnemonic for adrenal crisis symptoms:

Severe hypotension
Tiredness/weakness
Electrolyte abnormalities
Refractory shock
Orthostatic hypotension
Inability to handle stress
Dehydration

Management of Adrenal Crisis

Recognition and Diagnosis

Adrenal crisis is a medical emergency with mortality rates of 5-10% if untreated. Diagnosis is often clinical, as laboratory confirmation may delay treatment.

Clinical Presentation:

Severe hypotension or shock
Acute abdominal pain
Altered mental status
Severe weakness
Nausea and vomiting
Fever (may be absent)

Emergency Management

Immediate Treatment Protocol:

IV access and fluid resuscitation: 1-2L normal saline rapidly
Steroid replacement: Hydrocortisone 100mg IV immediately, then 100mg every 6-8 hours
Electrolyte correction: Address hyponatremia and hyperkalemia
Identify and treat precipitants: Infection, surgery, trauma
Monitoring: Frequent vital signs, electrolytes, glucose¹¹

🔑 Clinical Pearl: Never delay steroid administration in suspected adrenal crisis to obtain cortisol levels. Treat first, investigate later.

Recovery and Follow-up

Steroid Adjustment:

Continue high-dose hydrocortisone (300-400mg daily) for 24-48 hours
Gradually reduce to maintenance doses over 3-5 days
Consider mineralocorticoid replacement if hypotension persists

Evidence-Based Recommendations

Class I Recommendations (Strong Evidence)

Gradual tapering is required for patients receiving corticosteroids for >3 weeks or at supraphysiologic doses¹²
Stress dosing should be provided during acute illness in patients with suspected adrenal insufficiency
Immediate steroid replacement is indicated in suspected adrenal crisis

Class IIA Recommendations (Moderate Evidence)

Morning cortisol levels can guide tapering decisions in stable patients
Alternate-day dosing may facilitate HPA axis recovery during tapering
Patient education about symptoms of adrenal insufficiency improves outcomes¹³

Class IIB Recommendations (Limited Evidence)

Synacthen testing may be considered in high-risk patients before complete withdrawal
Slower tapering protocols may benefit elderly patients or those with multiple comorbidities

Practical Clinical Pearls and Hacks

The "Traffic Light" System

🟢 Green Zone (Low Risk):

<3 weeks duration
<10mg prednisolone daily
No comorbidities
Action: Rapid taper or direct discontinuation

🟡 Yellow Zone (Moderate Risk):

3-12 weeks duration
10-20mg prednisolone daily
Stable comorbidities
Action: Structured tapering protocol with monitoring

🔴 Red Zone (High Risk):

12 weeks duration
20mg prednisolone daily
Multiple comorbidities or unstable condition
Action: Slow taper with specialist input

The "Rule of Halves"

For patients on high-dose, long-term steroids:

Reduce to half the current dose
Continue for 2 weeks
If stable, reduce to half again
Repeat until reaching physiologic doses
Then switch to gradual tapering

Oyster Moments (Common Pitfalls)

❌ Oyster #1: Stopping steroids abruptly in patients on chronic therapy

Pearl: Always assume HPA suppression in chronic users

❌ Oyster #2: Forgetting stress dosing during intercurrent illness

Pearl: "When in doubt, dose for stress"

❌ Oyster #3: Using anti-inflammatory rather than replacement doses for adrenal insufficiency

Pearl: Physiologic replacement ≠ pharmacologic treatment

❌ Oyster #4: Tapering too quickly below 10mg prednisolone

Pearl: "Low and slow" - the last 10mg take the longest

❌ Oyster #5: Missing the diagnosis of adrenal crisis in critically ill patients

Pearl: Consider adrenal insufficiency in any unexplained shock

Special Populations

Elderly Patients

Slower tapering: May require 50% longer tapering periods
Increased monitoring: Higher risk of cardiovascular complications
Drug interactions: More likely to be on interacting medications
Cognitive assessment: May not report symptoms accurately¹⁴

Patients with Comorbidities

Diabetes Mellitus:

Monitor blood glucose closely during tapering
Adjust diabetic medications as steroid doses decrease
Consider continuous glucose monitoring during rapid changes

Cardiovascular Disease:

Monitor for hypotension during tapering
Consider slower tapering in patients with heart failure
Assess need for mineralocorticoid replacement

Renal Disease:

Adjust for altered drug clearance
Monitor electrolytes more frequently
Consider nephrology consultation for complex cases

Pregnant Patients

Teratogenicity concerns: Prednisolone preferred over other corticosteroids
Obstetric input: Coordinate with maternal-fetal medicine
Stress dosing: Required during labor and delivery¹⁵

Quality Improvement and System Approaches

Electronic Health Record Interventions

Automated Alerts:

Duration-based warnings for prolonged steroid use
Tapering schedule suggestions based on current dose and duration
Stress dosing reminders before procedures

Order Sets:

Standardized tapering protocols
Monitoring schedules
Emergency adrenal crisis management

Patient Safety Measures

Handoff Communication:

Always communicate steroid tapering plans during transfers
Document HPA suppression risk in discharge summaries
Provide clear instructions for outpatient tapering

Patient Education:

Steroid cards for at-risk patients
Written instructions about symptoms of adrenal insufficiency
Emergency contact information

Future Directions and Research

Emerging Biomarkers

Recent research has focused on novel biomarkers for HPA axis function:

Cortisone/cortisol ratios: May provide more sensitive assessment
Salivary cortisol: Non-invasive monitoring option
Urinary steroid metabolites: Comprehensive assessment of steroid metabolism¹⁶

Personalized Medicine Approaches

Genetic testing: CYP3A4 and 11β-HSD1 polymorphisms affecting steroid metabolism
Pharmacokinetic modeling: Individual dose optimization
Machine learning: Predictive models for HPA recovery

Novel Therapeutic Approaches

Selective glucocorticoid receptor modulators: Reduced side effect profiles
Chronotherapy: Optimizing dosing based on circadian rhythms
Combination therapies: Reducing steroid requirements through synergistic approaches¹⁷

Conclusion

Safe steroid withdrawal requires a systematic, evidence-based approach that considers individual patient factors, duration and dose of therapy, and clinical stability. The key to preventing adrenal crisis lies in recognizing high-risk patients, implementing appropriate tapering protocols, and maintaining vigilance for signs of adrenal insufficiency.

Critical care physicians must be adept at managing both the acute emergency of adrenal crisis and the chronic challenge of steroid withdrawal. By following established protocols, monitoring carefully, and educating patients, we can minimize the risks associated with corticosteroid therapy while optimizing patient outcomes.

The integration of clinical judgment with evidence-based protocols, supported by appropriate monitoring and patient education, forms the foundation of safe steroid withdrawal practice in critical care medicine.

References

Nieman LK. Diagnosis of Cushing's Syndrome in the Modern Era. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2018;47(2):259-273.
Johannsson G, Nilsson AG, Bergthorsdottir R, et al. Improved cortisol exposure-time profile and outcome in patients with adrenal insufficiency: a prospective randomized trial of a novel hydrocortisone dual-release formulation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(2):473-481.
Axelrod L. Perioperative management of patients treated with glucocorticoids. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2003;32(2):367-383.
Broersen LH, Pereira AM, Jørgensen JO, Dekkers OM. Adrenal insufficiency in corticosteroids use: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(6):2171-2180.
Crowley RK, Argese N, Tomlinson JW, Stewart PM. Central hypoadrenalism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(11):4027-4036.
Richter B, Neises G, Clar C. Glucocorticoid withdrawal schemes in chronic medical disorders. A systematic review. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2002;31(3):751-778.
Buttgereit F, Straub RH, Wehling M, Burmester GR. Glucocorticoids in the treatment of rheumatic diseases: an update on the mechanisms of action. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(11):3408-3417.
Marik PE, Pastores SM, Annane D, et al. Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid insufficiency in critically ill adult patients: consensus statements from an international task force. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(6):1937-1949.
Sarnes E, Crofford L, Watson M, Dennis G, Kan H, Bass D. Incidence and US costs of corticosteroid-associated adverse events: a systematic literature review. Clin Ther. 2011;33(10):1413-1432.
Hahner S, Spinnler C, Fassnacht M, et al. High incidence of adrenal crisis in educated patients with chronic adrenal insufficiency: a prospective study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):407-416.
Rushworth RL, Torpy DJ, Falhammar H. Adrenal Crisis. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(9):852-861.
Annane D, Pastores SM, Rochwerg B, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(12):2078-2088.
Bleicken B, Hahner S, Ventz M, Quinkler M. Delayed diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency is common: a cross-sectional study in 216 patients. Am J Med Sci. 2010;339(6):525-531.
Isidori AM, Arnaldi G, Boscaro M, et al. Towards the tailoring of glucocorticoid replacement in adrenal insufficiency: the Italian Society of Endocrinology Expert Opinion. J Endocrinol Invest. 2020;43(5):683-696.
Lebbe M, Arlt W. What is the best diagnostic and therapeutic management strategy for an Addison patient during pregnancy? Clin Endocrinol. 2013;78(4):497-502.
Whitaker MJ, Debono M, Huatan H, Merke DP, Arlt W, Ross RJ. An oral multiparticulate, controlled-release, hydrocortisone replacement therapy that provides physiological cortisol exposure. Clin Endocrinol. 2014;80(4):554-561.
Dekkers OM, Horváth-Puhó E, Jørgensen JO, et al. Multisystem morbidity and mortality in Cushing's syndrome: a cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98(6):2277-2284.

Declaration of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Critical Errors in Intravenous Fluid Management

Critical Errors in Intravenous Fluid Management: A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Intravenous fluid therapy remains one of the most fundamental yet frequently mismanaged interventions in critical care medicine. Despite its ubiquity, fluid administration errors contribute significantly to patient morbidity and mortality in intensive care units worldwide.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of common mistakes in IV fluid management, focusing on overcorrection, inappropriate fluid selection, inadequate monitoring of ongoing losses, and fluid creep phenomena.

Methods: We conducted a narrative review of recent literature on fluid management errors in critical care, analyzing patterns of mismanagement and their clinical consequences.

Results: Four major categories of errors emerge: (1) overcorrection leading to fluid overload, (2) inappropriate fluid type selection for specific clinical scenarios, (3) failure to account for ongoing losses, and (4) progressive fluid accumulation without clear indication (fluid creep). Each category carries distinct pathophysiological consequences and requires targeted prevention strategies.

Conclusions: Recognition and prevention of these common fluid management errors requires systematic approach, enhanced monitoring protocols, and improved understanding of fluid physiology in critical illness.

Keywords: fluid therapy, critical care, fluid overload, hyponatremia, sepsis, fluid balance

Introduction

Intravenous fluid therapy represents one of medicine's most prescribed interventions, yet paradoxically remains one of the most poorly understood and frequently misapplied treatments in critical care medicine. The apparent simplicity of fluid administration belies the complex physiological principles governing fluid distribution, electrolyte balance, and cardiovascular dynamics in critically ill patients.

Recent evidence suggests that inappropriate fluid management contributes to increased mortality, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delayed wound healing, and extended ICU stays. The FEAST trial's unexpected findings, where fluid boluses in pediatric sepsis increased mortality, fundamentally challenged our assumptions about fluid therapy and highlighted the potential for harm when fluids are administered without careful consideration of patient physiology and clinical context.

This review examines four critical areas where clinical practice frequently deviates from optimal fluid management: overcorrection syndromes, inappropriate fluid selection, inadequate accounting for ongoing losses, and the insidious phenomenon of fluid creep. Understanding these pitfalls is essential for safe and effective critical care practice.

Major Categories of IV Fluid Errors

1. Overcorrection Syndromes: When More Becomes Dangerous

The Pathophysiology of Overcorrection

Overcorrection in fluid therapy typically manifests in two primary scenarios: rapid correction of chronic hyponatremia and excessive volume resuscitation in shock states. Both situations arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of adaptive physiological mechanisms and the time required for cellular equilibration.

In chronic hyponatremia, brain cells adapt to hypotonic conditions by reducing intracellular osmolytes, particularly organic compounds like taurine, glycine, and glutamate. Rapid correction with hypertonic saline can precipitate osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS), previously known as central pontine myelinolysis. The critical threshold appears to be correction rates exceeding 8-10 mEq/L in 24 hours or 18 mEq/L in 48 hours.

Clinical Pearl: The 6-8-10 Rule

For chronic hyponatremia correction:

6 mEq/L maximum in first 6 hours
8 mEq/L maximum in first 24 hours
10 mEq/L maximum in high-risk patients (alcoholism, malnutrition, elderly)

Volume Overcorrection in Sepsis

The traditional approach of aggressive fluid resuscitation in sepsis has undergone significant revision following studies like ARISE, ProCESS, and ProMISe, which failed to demonstrate benefit from protocol-driven fluid administration. The CLASSIC trial showed that restrictive fluid strategies in ICU patients resulted in fewer days alive without life support.

Oyster Alert: The concept of "fluid responsiveness" is frequently misapplied. A patient may be fluid responsive (stroke volume increases with fluid challenge) but not fluid tolerant (cannot handle additional volume without adverse effects). This distinction is crucial in preventing volume overload.

Prevention Strategies for Overcorrection

Calculate correction rates precisely: Use formulas accounting for total body water and desired sodium targets
Monitor response hourly: Frequent electrolyte monitoring during active correction
Recognize high-risk populations: Elderly, malnourished, chronic alcoholics require more conservative approaches
Use dynamic markers: Pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, or passive leg raise tests for volume status assessment

2. Wrong Fluid Choice: Matching Solution to Clinical Scenario

Crystalloid vs. Colloid Controversy

The SAFE study definitively established that albumin offers no mortality benefit over saline in general ICU populations, while the ALBIOS trial showed similar results specifically in sepsis. However, the choice between different crystalloids has emerged as equally important.

Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) contains 154 mEq/L each of sodium and chloride, creating a hyperchloremic, mildly acidotic solution. Large volumes can precipitate hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and acute kidney injury through renal vasoconstriction.

Balanced crystalloids (Lactated Ringer's, Plasma-Lyte) more closely approximate plasma electrolyte composition and appear to reduce the incidence of acute kidney injury and need for renal replacement therapy.

Fluid Selection by Clinical Scenario

Traumatic Brain Injury:

Avoid hypotonic solutions (risk of cerebral edema)
Normal saline or hypertonic saline for osmotic therapy
Target euvolemia, not hypervolemia

Hyperkalemia:

Avoid potassium-containing solutions (LR contains 4 mEq/L K+)
Normal saline preferred for volume expansion
Consider insulin-glucose solutions for intracellular potassium shift

Chronic Kidney Disease:

Balanced solutions may be preferred to avoid chloride load
Monitor phosphate levels with phosphate-containing solutions
Careful attention to potassium content

Clinical Hack: The "Fluid Prescription"

Treat fluid orders like medication prescriptions:

Type: Which specific fluid?
Rate: How fast to administer?
Volume: Total amount and stopping criteria?
Monitoring: What parameters to follow?
Duration: When to reassess or discontinue?

3. Ignoring Ongoing Losses: The Hidden Fluid Deficit

Quantifying Insensible Losses

Insensible losses average 10-15 mL/kg/day in healthy adults but can increase dramatically in critical illness:

Fever: Each degree Celsius above normal increases losses by 10-15%
Tachypnea: Respiratory losses increase proportionally with minute ventilation
Burns: Can exceed 3-5 L/day in severe cases
Surgical drains: Often underestimated, particularly chest tubes and wound drainage

Gastrointestinal Losses: More Complex Than Volume Alone

Different GI secretions have distinct electrolyte compositions requiring specific replacement strategies:

Gastric secretions: High in H+ and Cl-, low in K+ Small bowel losses: High in Na+, K+, and HCO3- Diarrheal losses:Variable composition, often hypotonic

Pearl: Third-Spacing Phenomena

Third-spacing represents fluid sequestration in interstitial spaces that are not readily exchangeable with intravascular volume. Common scenarios include:

Post-operative patients (6-8 mL/kg for each hour of surgery)
Pancreatitis (can sequester several liters)
Peritonitis and inflammatory conditions
Burns and major trauma

Clinical Hack: Use the "fluid balance trending" approach rather than static measurements. A patient requiring progressively more fluid to maintain the same hemodynamic parameters likely has ongoing losses or third-spacing.

4. Fluid Creep: The Insidious Accumulation

Defining Fluid Creep

Fluid creep describes the progressive, often unrecognized accumulation of fluid in hospitalized patients without clear clinical indication. This phenomenon is particularly problematic in ICUs where multiple providers contribute to fluid orders, and the cumulative effect is not adequately monitored.

Sources of Unintended Fluid Administration

Medication dilutions: Continuous infusions, IV antibiotics, electrolyte replacements
Flush solutions: Central line maintenance, medication administration
Nutritional support: IV lipids, amino acid solutions
Blood products: Plasma, platelets, and associated preservatives
Contrast agents: CT scans, angiography procedures

The FEDSS Phenomenon

Fluid accumulation contributes to Fluid and Electrolyte Derangement in Septic Shock (FEDSS), characterized by:

Progressive increase in vasopressor requirements
Worsening oxygenation despite mechanical ventilation
Delayed wound healing and increased infection risk
Prolonged ICU stay and mechanical ventilation

Quantifying Fluid Creep

Cumulative Fluid Balance Calculation: Daily fluid balance = (All fluid intake) - (All outputs + insensible losses)

Track cumulative balance over ICU stay. Positive balances >5-10% of admission weight correlate with increased mortality and morbidity.

Clinical Pearl: The "Fluid Audit"

Implement daily fluid audits asking:

What is the indication for each current fluid?
Can any maintenance fluids be discontinued?
Are there more concentrated medication formulations available?
Has the patient's clinical condition changed to warrant fluid modification?

Advanced Monitoring and Prevention Strategies

Dynamic Assessment of Fluid Status

Traditional static markers (CVP, PCWP) have proven unreliable for guiding fluid therapy. Dynamic assessment techniques provide better guidance:

Functional Hemodynamic Parameters

Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV):

Reliable predictor of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients
PPV >13% suggests fluid responsiveness
Limitations: requires sinus rhythm, minimal spontaneous breathing effort

Stroke Volume Variation (SVV):

Similar principles to PPV but may be more accurate
Available through advanced monitoring systems
Same limitations as PPV

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Applications

Inferior Vena Cava Assessment:

IVC collapsibility >50% suggests volume depletion
IVC diameter >2.1 cm with minimal respiratory variation suggests volume overload
Best performed in spontaneously breathing patients

Lung Ultrasound:

B-lines indicate pulmonary edema
Can detect fluid overload before clinical signs
Useful for monitoring response to diuretic therapy

The Fluid De-escalation Strategy

Once initial resuscitation goals are achieved, implement systematic fluid de-escalation:

Switch from bolus to maintenance therapy
Concentrate medications to reduce carrier volumes
Consider diuretic therapy for fluid removal
Daily assessment of fluid necessity

Oyster: The "Dry Weight" Concept

Unlike dialysis patients, ICU patients rarely have a clearly defined "dry weight." Instead, target clinical parameters:

Adequate organ perfusion
Minimal signs of fluid overload
Optimal respiratory mechanics
Maintained hemodynamic stability

Special Populations and Considerations

Cardiac Surgery Patients

Post-cardiac surgery patients present unique challenges due to capillary leak syndrome, inflammatory response, and altered cardiac function. Key considerations include:

Expect 3-5 kg weight gain in first 24-48 hours
Early diuretic therapy may improve outcomes
Monitor for signs of cardiac tamponade vs. fluid overload

Burn Patients

The Parkland formula provides initial guidance but requires continuous adjustment:

First 24 hours: 4 mL/kg/% burn of lactated Ringer's
Titrate to urine output 0.5-1 mL/kg/hr
Be aware of third-spacing continuing for 48-72 hours

Acute Kidney Injury

Fluid management in AKI requires balancing adequate perfusion with avoiding volume overload:

Avoid nephrotoxic solutions when possible
Consider renal replacement therapy earlier in volume-overloaded patients
Monitor for uremic complications

Quality Improvement and Safety Measures

Implementing Fluid Stewardship Programs

Similar to antimicrobial stewardship, fluid stewardship programs can reduce inappropriate fluid use:

Education initiatives on fluid physiology and management
Electronic health record alerts for excessive positive fluid balance
Daily fluid rounds with structured assessment
Outcome monitoring linking fluid balance to clinical endpoints

Technology Solutions

Smart pumps with drug libraries can help standardize medication concentrations and reduce carrier fluid volumes.

Clinical decision support systems can alert providers to excessive fluid accumulation or inappropriate fluid choices.

Automated fluid balance calculations reduce computational errors and improve accuracy of intake/output monitoring.

Conclusion

Intravenous fluid therapy, despite its fundamental role in critical care medicine, remains fraught with potential for error and patient harm. The four major categories of mistakes—overcorrection, inappropriate fluid selection, ignoring ongoing losses, and fluid creep—represent preventable sources of morbidity and mortality in our ICUs.

Moving forward, critical care practitioners must embrace a more sophisticated understanding of fluid physiology, implement systematic monitoring protocols, and recognize that fluid administration is not a benign intervention but a powerful therapy requiring the same careful consideration given to any other medication.

The emergence of fluid stewardship as a quality improvement focus parallels the successful implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs. By applying similar principles of appropriate selection, optimal dosing, shortest effective duration, and de-escalation when appropriate, we can significantly improve patient outcomes while reducing the unintended consequences of fluid therapy.

As we continue to refine our understanding of fluid management in critical illness, the fundamental principle remains unchanged: the right fluid, at the right time, in the right amount, for the right patient. Mastering these principles represents not just technical competence but a commitment to the primum non nocere principle that guides all medical practice.

Key Teaching Points

Pearls for Practice

Calculate, don't estimate: Use precise formulas for electrolyte correction
Dynamic over static: Functional hemodynamic monitoring trumps static pressures
Think in terms of tolerance: Fluid responsiveness ≠ fluid tolerance
Audit daily: Question every fluid order's continued necessity
Concentrate when possible: Reduce carrier volumes for medications

Oysters to Avoid

Normal saline for everything: Consider balanced solutions for large volumes
Ignoring insensible losses: Factor in fever, tachypnea, and third-spacing
Set-and-forget maintenance fluids: Reassess daily based on clinical status
Chasing numbers without physiology: CVP and PCWP are poor guides to fluid needs
One-size-fits-all approach: Individualize based on patient factors and comorbidities

References

Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in Africa children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2483-2495.
Self WH, Semler MW, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in noncritically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):829-839.
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.
Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2247-2256.
Caironi P, Tognoni G, Masson S, et al. Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1412-1421.
Sterns RH, Riggs JE, Schochet SS Jr. Osmotic demyelination syndrome following correction of hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(24):1535-1542.
Verbalis JG, Goldsmith SR, Greenberg A, et al. Diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hyponatremia: expert panel recommendations. Am J Med. 2013;126(10 Suppl 1):S1-42.
Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Wetterslev J, et al. Restriction of intravenous fluid in ICU patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(26):2459-2470.
Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada TA, et al. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259-265.
Acheampong A, Vincent JL. A positive fluid balance is an independent prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. Crit Care. 2015;19:251.
Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: a critical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121(6):2000-2008.
Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, Hirani A. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(9):2642-2647.
Silversides JA, Fitzgerald E, Manickavasagam US, et al. Deresuscitation of patients with iatrogenic fluid overload is associated with reduced mortality in critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(10):1600-1607.
Prowle JR, Echeverri JE, Ligabo EV, et al. Fluid balance and acute kidney injury. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010;6(2):107-115.
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network. Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564-2575.