SEE Question

Abstract

Article| June 2023 SEE Question ASA Monitor June 2023, Vol. 87, 10. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASM.0000938788.55744.cf Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Cite Icon Cite Get Permissions Search Site Citation SEE Question. ASA Monitor 2023; 87:10 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASM.0000938788.55744.cf Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll PublicationsASA Monitor Search Advanced Search Topics: body fluid, intensive care unit, intravenous fluids administration, mortality, septic shock, vasoconstrictor agents, adverse event, crystalloid solutions, renal failure, acute A 35-year-old man is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in septic shock after surgery for a perforated appendix. According to a recent study comparing fluid administration strategies in ICU patients in septic shock, which of the following outcomes is MOST likely if this patient is administered a restrictive fluid strategy as opposed to a standard fluid strategy? Sepsis remains a top cause of mortality worldwide. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign has published recommendations for the treatment of sepsis and septic shock. The most recent publication in 2021 retained the rating of strong for some recommendations, such as the use of vasopressor support to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg or greater. Other recommendations had their ratings downgraded; for example, the recommendation regarding the use of a 30-mL/kg intravenous (I.V.) crystalloid fluid bolus within the first three hours for the treatment of sepsis-induced hypotension was downgraded... You do not currently have access to this content.