Skip to main content
Download PDF

Fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a secondary analysis of the CLOVERS trial

Critical Care volume 28, Article number: 231 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Early fluid management in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and sepsis-induced hypotension is challenging with limited evidence to support treatment recommendations. We aimed to compare an early restrictive versus liberal fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension in patients with advanced CKD.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis included patients with advanced CKD (eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or history of end-stage renal disease on chronic dialysis) from the crystalloid liberal or vasopressor early resuscitation in sepsis (CLOVERS) trial. The primary endpoint was death from any cause before discharge home by day 90.

Results

Of 1563 participants enrolled in the CLOVERS trial, 196 participants had advanced CKD (45% on chronic dialysis), with 92 participants randomly assigned to the restrictive treatment group and 104 assigned to the liberal fluid group. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred significantly less often in the restrictive fluid group compared with the liberal fluid group (20 [21.7%] vs. 41 [39.4%], HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.29–0.85). Participants in the restrictive fluid group had more vasopressor-free days (19.7 ± 10.4 days vs. 15.4 ± 12.6 days; mean difference 4.3 days, 95% CI, 1.0–7.5) and ventilator-free days by day 28 (21.0 ± 11.8 vs. 16.5 ± 13.6 days; mean difference 4.5 days, 95% CI, 0.9–8.1).

Conclusions

In patients with advanced CKD and sepsis-induced hypotension, an early restrictive fluid strategy, prioritizing vasopressor use, was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 as compared with an early liberal fluid strategy.

Trial Registration

NCT03434028 (2018-02-09), BioLINCC 14149.

Background

Sepsis represents a major health care problem worldwide and is associated with a high treatment burden and mortality, contributing to an estimated 20% of all global deaths [1,2,3]. Intravenous fluid resuscitation is a cornerstone in the treatment of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, aiming to increase preload, cardiac output, and oxygen delivery to tissues [4, 5]. In contrast, excess fluid replenishment may lead to volume overload which bears the risk of prolonged ventilation and increased mortality [6]. Current 2021 guidelines from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) recommend the administration of 30 mL/kg body weight of intravenous crystalloid fluid within the first three hours of resuscitation with further fluid management being guided by dynamic parameters, such as stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, or echocardiography [7]. Fluid management in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) who suffer from sepsis proves particularly challenging because these patients are prone to volume overload due to a dysregulated fluid balance and perturbed circulatory response to vasopressors. Moreover, advanced CKD itself is associated with an increased risk of death in patients with sepsis [8, 9]. Recommendations for fluid management in sepsis are largely based on low-quality evidence [10], and quality data for the subpopulation of patients with advanced CKD are mostly lacking. While retrospective data hint towards an acceptable fluid tolerance in patients with advanced CKD and sepsis during the fluid resuscitation phase [11, 12], in-depth prospective data, particularly involving the optimization and stabilization phases of fluid therapy in sepsis, are still missing.

The CLOVERS (Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressor Early Resuscitation in Sepsis) trial randomized participants with sepsis-induced hypotension to an early restrictive treatment strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or liberal fluid treatment strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) and was unable to detect a significant difference in mortality before discharge home by day 90 between the two treatment groups [13]. We hypothesized that patients with advanced CKD (defined as patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or end-stage renal disease [ESRD] on chronic dialysis) and sepsis-induced hypotension might benefit from an early restrictive fluid strategy and aimed to test our hypothesis in a post-hoc analysis of the CLOVERS trial.

Methods

Study design

This post-hoc analysis of the randomized controlled CLOVERS trial aimed to investigate whether a restrictive fluid strategy, compared with a liberal fluid strategy, improves clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients with advanced CKD. The design and results of the original CLOVERS trial have been published previously [13, 14]. A central institutional review board and NHLBI-appointed independent data and safety monitoring board reviewed and approved the original trial protocol. Data for this post-hoc analysis was obtained from the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center [15]. The Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Vienna waived the need for review of this study.

Patient population

The CLOVERS trial enrolled adult participants (18 years or older) with a suspected or confirmed infection and hypotension caused by sepsis (systolic blood pressure below 100 mmHg despite an intravenous infusion of at least 1000 mL of crystalloid fluid). Key exclusion criteria were a period of more than 4 h since meeting the criteria for hypotension unresponsive to intravenous infusion of at least 1000 mL, a period of more than 24 h since admission to hospital, previous administration of at least 3000 mL of intravenous fluid during this episode, severe volume depletion due to causes other than sepsis, and the presence of fluid overload. Fluid overload included pulmonary or peripheral edema suggested by clinical signs (bilateral crackles) or radiologic findings (fluid overload on chest x-ray).

This post-hoc analysis included patients with advanced CKD, defined by an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a history of ESRD on chronic dialysis. Patients were included in this analysis if they met at least one of the following criteria: (i) the patient was on chronic dialysis at time of randomization, as documented in the case report form, (ii) an eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 based on a (not acutely elevated) serum creatinine value from the previous year before randomization, and (iii) the baseline comorbidity assessment which was used to calculate the Charlson comorbidity index. We calculated eGFR values using the baseline serum creatinine, age, sex, and skin color with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2021 (CKD-EPI) formula [16]. The criteria for advanced CKD in the Charlson Comorbidity Index used in the CLOVERS trials included either a serum creatinine of more than 3 mg/dL, a chart diagnosis of CKD stage 5 (eGFR of less than 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) or the need for dialysis.

Trial procedures

The CLOVERS trial randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to either a restrictive fluid strategy (with early vasopressor use) or a liberal fluid strategy. The assigned fluid management protocol was followed for 24 h after randomization. The restrictive fluid protocol prioritized vasopressors as the primary treatment for sepsis-induced hypotension, with “rescue fluids” permitted in case of severe intravascular volume depletion. Norepinephrine was suggested as the primary vasopressor. The liberal fluid protocol recommended an initial 1000 mL intravenous bolus infusion of isotonic crystalloids. After clinical reassessment, another 1000 mL of isotonic crystalloid fluid were given in case of persistent volume depletion. Further fluid boluses were based on clinical triggers, such as tachycardia. The conduct of the study was supported by a trial team to improve protocol adherence. After the first 24 h, fluid management was no longer specified.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was death from any cause before discharge home by day 90. Secondary outcomes included 28 day measures of the number of days free from ventilator use, days free from vasopressor use, days out of the ICU, and days out of the hospital. We also assessed the new onset of acute respiratory distress syndrome by day 7 and new intubation by day 28. The days free from renal-replacement therapy were only analyzed in the subset of patients with advanced CKD not previously receiving dialysis. Incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) was compared between the two groups. AKI definitions followed those of the KDIGO (The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) recommendations [17]: AKI stage I was defined as a short-term increase in serum creatinine by at least 0.3 mg/dL or an at least 1.5-fold increase in creatinine levels. AKI stage II and III were defined as a 2- to threefold increase and more than threefold increase in serum creatinine levels, respectively. Calculations were based on the serum creatinine value at randomization and the highest creatinine value within 6 days after randomization.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are presented using numbers with percentage (%). Continuous variables are summarized using mean with standard deviations (SD) or medians with interquartile ranges (IQR), depending on the data distribution. Baseline differences between the restrictive fluid group and liberal fluid group were tested using Fisher's exact test or independent t test (or Wilcoxon rank-sum test in case normal distribution cannot be assumed). Analysis of the primary outcome (death before discharge home by day 90) used Kaplan–Meier time to event analysis. P values of the time-to-event analyses were calculated using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios of death were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards model. Visual inspection of the Schoenfeld residuals revealed no violation of proportional hazards assumptions. For all other outcomes, we report mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. For the primary outcome, we used forest plots to assess treatment heterogeneity between patients with advanced CKD not receiving dialysis, in patients with advanced CKD receiving dialysis, and patients without established advanced CKD (i.e., all remaining participants who did not meet the criteria for advanced CKD). We performed univariate Cox regression analyses to identify variables associated with death before discharge home by day 90. Variables with a p value below 0.1 were selected for a multivariate Cox regression model to adjust the primary outcome comparison for residual confounding. To determine the risk of collinearity, univariate correlation coefficients between the independent variables and the variance inflation factor (VIF) were computed. Univariate correlation coefficients below 0.4 were considered weak and therefore acceptable for the multivariate model. The VIF is a measure of how much the variance of an estimated regression coefficient is increased due to collinearity. In this study, VIF values > 2.5 were interpreted as meaningful collinearity and values > 10 as significant collinearity. All analyses used an intention-to-treat approach. All P values are two-sided. Due to the exploratory nature of this post-hoc analysis, no adjustment of P values or confidence intervals for multiple comparisons was made. Therefore, the results of this analysis can only be hypothesis-generating and should not be interpreted as an inference for treatment decisions. Analyses and data visualization were conducted in R statistical software, R version 4.1.2 (2021-11-01) and RStudio Version 2023.09.1 + 494.

Results

Participants and baseline characteristics

From March 2018 to January 2022, the CLOVERS trial assessed 12,276 patients from 60 U.S. study centers for eligibility. Of these, 1563 patients were included. A total of 782 participants were assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. The trial was prematurely terminated following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board which concluded futility due to a lack of between-group differences in the outcomes. After excluding 1367 participants without advanced CKD, this post-hoc analysis comprised 92 participants with advanced CKD (eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or history of ESRD on chronic dialysis) in the restrictive fluid group and 104 participants with advanced CKD in the liberal fluid group. The study flow chart is provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of the study

Full size image

Within the advanced CKD subgroup, baseline characteristics were similar between the restrictive fluid group and the liberal fluid group (Table 1). Forty-four (47.8%) of 92 participants in the restrictive fluid group and 45 (43.3%) of 104 participants in the liberal fluid group received chronic dialysis. Participants in the restrictive fluid group and the liberal fluid group had received similar amounts of intravenous fluid before randomization (mean ± SD, 1844 ± 672 and 1854 ± 627 ml, respectively). Vasopressors were used at randomization in 23 (25.0%) of 92 participants in the restrictive fluid group and 27 (26.0%) of 104 participants in the liberal fluid group.

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants at baseline
Full size table

Table S1 shows the baseline characteristics of participants with advanced CKD not receiving dialysis (n = 107), participants with advanced CKD receiving dialysis (n = 89), and participants excluded from this post-hoc analysis because of absent advanced CKD (n = 1367), irrespective of their group assignment. Self-reported African American race was significantly more prevalent in the group of participants with advanced CKD not on dialysis (22 [20.6%]) and in the group of participants with advanced CKD on dialysis (32 [36.0]) than in the group of participants without advanced CKD (193 [14.1%]).

Protocol-guided resuscitation treatments

Within the first 6 h after randomization, the median volume of intravenous fluid was 424 mL (IQR 50 to 950) in the restrictive fluid group and 2300 mL (IQR 2000 to 3000) in the liberal fluid group, resulting in a mean difference of −1776 mL (95% CI −2025 to −1526) (Table S2 and Fig. S1). Similarly, the total median volume of intravenous fluid during the first 24 h after randomization was lower in the restrictive fluid group (median 1200 mL, IQR 490 to 2373) than in the liberal fluid group (median 3325 mL, IQR 2500 to 4641), with a mean difference of −1667 mL (95% CI −2262 to −1072) (Table S2, Fig. S2).

The urinary output within 24 h (excluding patients who were anuric) was similar between the restrictive group (median 345 mL, IQR 0 to 989) and the liberal fluid group (median 390 mL, IQR 0 to 1000). The net positive fluid balance was significantly lower in the restrictive group (median 1087 mL, IQR 90 to 2427) was significantly lower than in the liberal fluid group (median 2961 mL, IQR 1900 to 3995), with a mean group difference of −1400 mL (95% CI −2133 to −667).

Vasopressors were more frequently administered in the restrictive fluid group (68 [73.9%] of 92) than the liberal fluid group (52 [50%] of 104), initiated earlier (mean difference, −2.4 h; 95% CI −4.3 to −0.5), and used for longer during the first 24 h after randomization (mean difference 6.4 h, 95% CI 3.6 to 9.2) (Fig. S3).

Primary efficacy outcome

Death before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 20 participants (21.7%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 41 participants (39.4%) in the liberal fluid group (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.85, p = 0.009) (Table 2 and Fig. 2A). Figure 3 shows the primary outcome in participants with advanced CKD not receiving dialysis, in participants with advanced CKD receiving dialysis, and participants without established advanced CKD. In the subgroup analysis of participants with advanced CKD receiving dialysis, the primary endpoint occurred in 9 (20.5%) of 44 in the restrictive fluid group and 21 (46.7%) of 45 participants in the liberal fluid group (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.81) (Fig. 2B). In the subgroup analysis of participants with advanced CKD not receiving dialysis, the primary endpoint occurred in 11 (22.9%) of 48 in the restrictive fluid group and 20 (33.9%) of 59 participants (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.33) (Fig. 2C). In participants without advanced CKD, the primary endpoint occurred in 89 (12.9%) of 690 in the restrictive fluid group and 75 (11.1%) of 677 participants (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.6).

Table 2 Overview of primary and secondary study outcomes
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

A–D Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) between the restrictive fluid group and liberal fluid group A in all patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), B in patients with advanced CKD receiving dialysis, C in patients with advanced CKD not receiving dialysis, (D) and in patients without advanced CKD

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Effect estimates of the primary outcome (death from any cause before discharge home by day 90) between the restrictive fluid group and liberal fluid group in (i) patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), (ii) patients with no advanced CKD not receiving dialysis, (iii) patients with CKD receiving no dialysis, and (iv) patients with advanced CKD receiving dialysis

Full size image

Variables with a p value below 0.1 in the univariate Cox regression analyses (randomization to the restrictive fluid group, a serum lactate at randomization of 2 mmol/L or more, vasopressor use at baseline, a SOFA score of 4 or more at randomization, presence of neoplasia with metastasis, presence of neoplasia without metastasis, ARDS at baseline, and age of 60 years or above) were included in the multivariate analysis. After adjustment, randomization to the restrictive fluid group was independently associated with a lower risk of death before discharge home by day 90 (adjusted HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83) (Table S3). All included variables showed weak (< 0.4) correlation coefficients (Fig. S4). The VIF of the variables included in the final multivariate Cox regression model was below 2.5, suggesting a low risk of multicollinearity (Table S4).

Secondary efficacy outcomes

The number of vasopressor-free days by day 28 was significantly lower in the restrictive fluid group (mean ± SD, 19.7 ± 10.4 days) than in the liberal fluid group (mean ± SD, 15.4 ± 12.6 days), with a mean difference of 4.3 days (95% CI 1.0 to 7.5) (Table 2 and Fig. 4). There were significantly more ventilator-free days by day 28 in the restrictive fluid group (21.0 ± 11.8 days) than in the liberal fluid group (16.5 ± 13.6 days), with a mean difference of 4.5 days (95% CI 0.9 to 8.1). The restrictive fluid group had numerically fewer episodes of new onset acute respiratory distress syndrome by day 7 (1 [1.1%] vs. 5 [4.9%]), required fewer intubations by day 28 (12 [14.8%] vs. 18 [19.8%]), experienced more ICU-free days by day 28 (19.1 ± 10.9 vs. 17.2 ± 11.8 days), and had more hospital-free days by day 28 (13.3 ± 11.0 vs. 10.3 ± 11.3 days) than the liberal fluid group, without reaching statistical significance (Table 2 and Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Key secondary outcomes in number of days by day 28 after randomization between the restrictive fluid group and liberal fluid group. Bars with error bars indicate means and 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

Kidney function-related outcomes in participants with advanced CKD not previously receiving dialysis

Among participants not previously receiving dialysis, renal-replacement therapy was newly initiated in 6 (12.5%) of 48 participants in the restrictive fluid group and 7 (11.9%) of 59 participants in the liberal fluid group, with a mean number of renal-replacement-free days by day 28 of 20.8 ± 12.0 and 17.1 ± 13.5 days, respectively (mean difference 3.7 days, 95% CI −1.2 to 8.6). In participants with advanced CKD not receiving dialysis, acute kidney injury (stage I, II or III) occurred in 14 (29.2%) of 48 participants in the restrictive fluid group and 11 (18.6%) of 58 participants in the liberal fluid group (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.7 to 4.9). The occurrence of acute kidney injury stage I (11 [22.9%] vs. 9 [15.3%]), stage II (3 [6.2%] vs. 1 [1.7%]), and stage III (0 [0%] vs. 1 [1.7%]) was similar between the restrictive fluid group and the liberal fluid group (Table S5).

Discussion

In this post-hoc analysis of participants with advanced CKD and sepsis-induced hypotension, we found that a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressor use) was associated with significantly fewer deaths before discharge home by day 90 compared with a liberal fluid strategy. A restrictive fluid strategy was also associated with a greater number of ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days.

The management of sepsis and septic shock remains challenging, with guidance for optimal fluid therapy being largely based on weak recommendations and low-quality evidence [7]. The difficulty of fluid management in sepsis is due to a complex interplay of inflammation-induced endothelial dysfunction, dysregulated osmotic and hydrostatic pressure, and organ failure leading to impaired fluid distribution between the intravascular, interstitial, and intracellular compartments [18]. The recently published SSC Research Priorities 2023 issued a call to investigate a more refined and individualized approach to fluid resuscitation in sepsis and septic shock [19]. Hence, we seized the opportunity to take a closer look at patients with advanced CKD and sepsis-induced hypotension included in the CLOVERS trial and aimed to determine whether a restrictive fluid strategy was beneficial in this patient population.

In our analysis, the benefit of a restrictive fluid protocol was most evident in the subgroup of patients with advanced CKD on dialysis (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.81). Assignment to the restrictive study arm in participants with advanced CKD excluding participants requiring dialysis was associated with similar but non-significant trend (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.33). Arguably, failure to achieve statistical significance in the subgroup of participants who had advanced CKD not receiving dialysis (n = 107) may have been due to the limited sample size. However, the 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.31 to 1.33 does not fully exclude potential harm associated with a restrictive fluid approach in patients with advanced CKD not receiving dialysis. The results of this post-hoc analysis may lead to the assumption that the greater the chronic impairment of kidney function, the more beneficial a restrictive fluid strategy in sepsis-induced hypotension might be. In contrast, no significant difference between fluid strategies was found in participants without advanced CKD.

Notably, this analysis found that early restrictive fluid strategy within the first 24 h had an impact on the 90 day mortality. This sustained effect might be explained by several physiological effects of fluid overload, which was on average less pronounced the restrictive fluid group (plus 1.1 L) than in the liberal fluid group (plus 2.9 L). Fluid overload may be a particular problem in patients with impaired kidney function due to excess venous volume and interstitial edema, which may explain the beneficial effect of a restrictive fluid strategy in this subgroup. Excessive administration of intravenous crystalloid fluids transiently increases intravascular volume but also leads to worsening extravascular fluid leakage (edema). The latter may interfere with cellular function in the kidneys, liver, heart and lungs [11]. Several days of diuresis after shock resolution are often necessary to remove this excess fluid generated by an initial liberal fluid strategy [20]. Fluid overload of the lung may promote pulmonary edema, requiring prolonged intubation, as it was the case in the liberal fluid group.

The findings of this post-hoc analysis emphasize that, in patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the differentiation between impaired kidney function due to advanced CKD and new-onset sepsis-associated AKI has important clinical implications. Sepsis-associated AKI underlies complex pathophysiological mechanisms, which differ from CKD [20]. While our analysis found a restrictive fluid resuscitation strategy to be beneficial in patients with advanced CKD, another secondary analysis of the CLOVERS trial found no difference between fluid strategies among patients with and without sepsis-associated AKI [21]. Thus, these findings suggest that the clinical context of impaired kidney function (i.e., advanced CKD or sepsis-associated AKI) should be considered in the approach to fluid management of sepsis-induced hypotension.

AKI was numerically more frequent in the restrictive fluid intake group (29%) than in the liberal fluid group (14%), possibly due to reduced renal perfusion. Although the importance of this finding is unclear, the observed reduction in mortality following a restrictive fluid strategy in this analysis outweighs the potential risk of AKI occurrence.

Fluid resuscitation in the initial hours of sepsis onset (as it was done before randomization for all participants in the CLOVERS trial) appears effective across a wide range of patient subgroups with sepsis, including patients with advanced CKD [11]. However, continued large volume infusion of crystalloid fluid might be harmful and confer a risk of volume overload. The results of our analysis might favor a more restrictive fluid approach following initial fluid resuscitation within the first 24 h in patients with sepsis-induced hypotension and advanced CKD.

Our post-hoc analysis has limitations. Despite demonstrating a significant trend towards a benefit of a fluid restrictive approach in patients with advanced CKD and sepsis-induced hypotension, this analysis has a limited sample size of only 196 participants and should therefore be regarded as hypothesis-generating as the possibility of type 1 error exists. The sample size of the subgroup of patients not receiving dialysis might have been too small to show any significant effect. Further subgroup analyses were not feasible due to the small sample size. Participants in the restrictive fluid group were slightly younger and had a significantly higher body-mass index [22, 23], which might have affected our results. Mortality in the CLOVERS trial was lower than reported for participants with septic shock in the ICU managed with restrictive or liberal fluid protocols [24], limiting the generalizability of our results. Our analysis did not distinguish between participants receiving continuous hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Although the current or imminent decision to withhold most or all life-sustaining treatment was an exclusion criterion in the COVERS trial, data on treatment withdrawal after inclusion in the trial, potentially influencing the primary outcome, was unavailable.

Conclusions

In patients with advanced CKD and sepsis-induced hypotension, an early restrictive fluid strategy, prioritizing vasopressor use, was associated with a significantly lower risk of death before discharge home by day 90 as compared with an early liberal fluid strategy. The results of this analysis warrant further clinical investigation to determine whether a restrictive fluid strategy should be favored in patients with advanced CKD and sepsis-induced hypotension.

Availability of data and materials

Access to data from the CLOVERS trial was granted by the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center.

Abbreviations

AKI:

Acute kidney injury

ARDS:

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

CKD:

Chronic kidney disease

CLOVERS:

Crystalloid liberal or vasopressor early resuscitation in sepsis

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

ESRD:

End-stage renal disease

KDIGO:

Kidney disease improving global outcomes

NHLBI:

National heart, lung, and blood institute

SOFA:

Sequential organ-failure assessment

SSC:

Surviving sepsis campaign

References

  1. Reinhart K, Daniels R, Kissoon N, Machado FR, Schachter RD, Finfer S. Recognizing sepsis as a global health priority—a WHO resolution. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):414–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hotchkiss RS, Moldawer LL, Opal SM, Reinhart K, Turnbull IR, Vincent JL. Sepsis and septic shock. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. 2020;395(10219):200–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hahn RG. Understanding volume kinetics. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020;64(5):570–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malbrain M, Van Regenmortel N, Saugel B, De Tavernier B, Van Gaal PJ, Joannes-Boyau O, et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D’s and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kelm DJ, Perrin JT, Cartin-Ceba R, Gajic O, Schenck L, Kennedy CC. Fluid overload in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock treated with early goal-directed therapy is associated with increased acute need for fluid-related medical interventions and hospital death. Shock. 2015;43(1):68–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):e1063–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mansur A, Mulwande E, Steinau M, Bergmann I, Popov AF, Ghadimi M, et al. Chronic kidney disease is associated with a higher 90-day mortality than other chronic medical conditions in patients with sepsis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10539.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bou Chebl R, Tamim H, Abou Dagher G, Sadat M, Ghamdi G, Itani A, et al. Sepsis in end-stage renal disease patients: are they at an increased risk of mortality? Ann Med. 2021;53(1):1737–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Marik PE, Byrne L, van Haren F. Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg hoax. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(Suppl 1):S37–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuttab HI, Lykins JD, Hughes MD, Wroblewski K, Keast EP, Kukoyi O, et al. Evaluation and predictors of fluid resuscitation in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(11):1582–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Rajdev K, Leifer L, Sandhu G, Mann B, Pervaiz S, Habib S, et al. Fluid resuscitation in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis presenting with severe sepsis or septic shock: a case control study. J Crit Care. 2020;55:157–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Clinical Trials Network (2023) Early restrictive or liberal fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension. N Engl J Med. 388(6): 499–510

  14. Self WH, Semler MW, Bellomo R, Brown SM, deBoisblanc BP, Exline MC, et al. Liberal versus restrictive intravenous fluid therapy for early septic shock: rationale for a randomized trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(4):457–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Coady SA, Mensah GA, Wagner EL, Goldfarb ME, Hitchcock DM, Giffen CA. Use of the national heart, lung, and blood institute data repository. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(19):1849–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Inker LA, Eneanya ND, Coresh J, Tighiouart H, Wang D, Sang Y, et al. New creatinine- and cystatin c-based equations to estimate GFR without race. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(19):1737–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120(4):c179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zampieri FG, Bagshaw SM, Semler MW. Fluid therapy for critically ill adults with sepsis: a review. JAMA. 2023;329(22):1967–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Backer D, Deutschman CS, Hellman J, Myatra SN, Ostermann M, Prescott HC, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign research priorities 2023. Crit Care Med. 2024;52(2):268–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zarbock A, Nadim MK, Pickkers P, Gomez H, Bell S, Joannidis M, et al. Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: consensus report of the 28th acute disease quality initiative workgroup. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2023;19(6):401–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khader A, Zelnick LR, Sathe NA, Kestenbaum BR, Himmelfarb J, Johnson NJ, et al. The interaction of acute kidney injury with resuscitation strategy in sepsis: a secondary analysis of a multicenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial (CLOVERS). Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023;208(12):1335–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Martin GS, Mannino DM, Moss M. The effect of age on the development and outcome of adult sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(1):15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pepper DJ, Demirkale CY, Sun J, Rhee C, Fram D, Eichacker P, et al. Does obesity protect against death in sepsis? A retrospective cohort study of 55,038 adult patients. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(5):643–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Wetterslev J, Sivapalan P, Laake JH, Cronhjort M, et al. Restriction of intravenous fluid in ICU patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(26):2459–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was prepared using CLOVERS Research Materials obtained from the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of CLOVERS or the NHLBI. We would like to thank the investigators of the CLOVERS Research Group for their invaluable efforts. We also want to thank the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center.

Funding

No financial support was received for the conduct of this post-hoc analysis. The CLOVERS trial was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (grants U01 HL122989, U01 HL122998, U01 HL123004, U01 HL123008, U01 HL123009, U01 HL123010, U01 HL123018, U01 HL123020, U01 HL123022, U01 HL123023, U01 HL123027, U01 HL123031, and U01 HL123033).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Anselm Jorda, Felix Bergmann, Markus Zeitlinger, Bernd Jilma & Georg Gelbenegger

  2. Department of Medicine, Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver Health and University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA

    Ivor S. Douglas

  3. Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Thomas Staudinger

  4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine II, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Gottfried Heinz

  5. Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Rainer Oberbauer & Gürkan Sengölge

  6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Nathan I. Shapiro

Authors
  1. Anselm Jorda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivor S. Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Staudinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gottfried Heinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felix Bergmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rainer Oberbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gürkan Sengölge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Markus Zeitlinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bernd Jilma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nathan I. Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Georg Gelbenegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AJ and GG conceived the study idea. AJ and GG requested permission for use of the data from the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center and had unrestricted access to the data. AJ and GG performed the statistical analysis and drew figures and tables. AJ and GG analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georg Gelbenegger.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

A central institutional review board and NHLBI-appointed independent data and safety monitoring board reviewed and approved the trial protocol. The Ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna waived the need for review for this post-hoc analysis.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

No author reports conflict of interests relevant to this work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jorda, A., Douglas, I.S., Staudinger, T. et al. Fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a secondary analysis of the CLOVERS trial. Crit Care 28, 231 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05019-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05019-6

Keywords

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535