Shock in Surgical Patients — Four Categories, Perfusion-Targeted Resuscitation, Pressors, Blood and Cause Control

Sixty-eight, day 1 after laparotomy, systolic 82, cold, mottled, lactate 4.6, urine 10 mL/h. Is this bleeding, sepsis, a blocked circulation or a failing pump? The next twenty minutes decide the outcome — and the examiner will watch you classify first, resuscitate second, and fix the cause third. This page teaches all three moves with every number taken from the papers named beside it.^[1][2]

Overview & Definition — four compartments, one mismatch

A severe mismatch between the supply and demand of oxygen is the common feature of all types of shock.^[1] From that single sentence the classification falls out: there are only four major categories of shock, each mainly related to one of four organ systems — hypovolaemic shock of the blood and fluids compartment, distributive shock of the vascular system, cardiogenic shock from primary cardiac dysfunction, and obstructive shock from a blockage of the circulation.^[1]

Septic shock — the distributive shock surgeons meet most — has its own consensus anchor. Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, operationalized as a SOFA rise of 2+ points with mortality above 10%.^[2] Shock is its deadliest subset: vasopressor-dependent hypotension holding MAP 65+ mmHg plus lactate above 2 mmol/L after fluids, with mortality above 40%.^[2] The derivation is explicit — the pressor-plus-lactate group died at 42.3% against the alternatives, and the systematic review behind the definition found crude mortality of 46.5%.^[4] In surgical patients the working translation is shorter: infection plus organ dysfunction from a dysregulated host response, treated by source control, appropriate antibiotics and organ support.^[8]

Classification — what each type is and what each demands

^[1]

Each row of that table is a treatment strategy, not a label — the classification exists to facilitate goal-driven treatment, with a uniform strategy per type in pre-hospital and inpatient care alike.^[1]

Epidemiology & Risk Factors — the denominators that set the stakes

Sepsis surveillance gives the scale of the commonest surgical shock: 173,690 cases by clinical criteria among 2,901,019 adult admissions in 2014 — 6.0% incidence — with 15.0% dead in hospital and 6.2% discharged to hospice.^[7] The ICU validation cohort behind SOFA ran even hotter: 184,875 infected ICU admissions, 18.7% dead, 90.1% with a SOFA rise of 2+.^[5] In the surgical cohort specifically — 13,780 intermediate and intensive care encounters — suspected infection touched 18.3% of intermediate-care, 35.5% of ICU and 62.0% of combined encounters.^[6]

Calibrate with the trial mortalities you will quote at viva: SOAP II shock patients died at 52.5% (dopamine) versus 48.5% (norepinephrine) by day 28; CLASSIC septic-shock ICU patients at 42.3% versus 42.1% by day 90; APROCCHSS at 43.0% versus 49.1%.^[22][21][26] Shock is the highest-mortality physiology a surgeon manages — say the numbers before you touch the patient.

Pathophysiology — supply, distribution, pump, blockage, and the lactate clock

Hypovolaemic shock is absolute loss; distributive shock is relative hypovolaemia — the same intravascular volume pathologically redistributed, which is why vasoconstrictors join fluids rather than following them.^[1] Cardiogenic shock is systemic hypoperfusion with inadequate cardiac output from pump failure across many causes.^[33] Obstructive shock is central-vessel obstruction: in pulmonary embolism the intravascular clot acutely raises right-ventricular afterload; in tension pneumothorax extravascular pressure compresses the vessels supplying the heart — both deteriorate toward cardiac collapse within minutes.^[35]

Neurogenic shock has its own wiring diagram. High thoracic (at or above T6) and cervical cord injuries destroy sympathetic activity with unopposed vagal drive to the myocardium — hypotension plus bradycardia — while lower thoracic injuries pool venous blood for hypotension alone.^[32] That single level-rule separates neurogenic from haemorrhagic collapse at the trauma bay, though both can coexist.

Read lactate as two different signals across time. Clearance runs an initial 6-to-12-hour predominantly flow-dependent phase, where elevation means hypoperfusion and answers fluids, pressors and oxygen delivery — then a later phase beyond 12 hours where persistent hyperlactataemia more often means metabolic reprogramming, immune activation and mitochondrial dysfunction.^[9] The bedside consequence is blunt: persistent hyperlactataemia without hypoperfusion may be misleading and should not drive further resuscitation.^[9]

Clinical Presentation — signatures the examiner watches you spot

The shocked surgical patient declares the category if you look in order: peripheries (cold-mottled versus warm-vasodilated versus pale), neck veins (flat versus distended), lungs (clear versus wet versus unilaterally silent), heart sounds (muffled, murmurs, rubs), heart rate (tachycardic versus paradoxically bradycardic after cord injury), and the trigger (blood on the floor, pus in the drain, chest pain, exposure history, spinal trauma).^[1][32]

Cardiogenic shock is a cardiac disorder with systolic pressure below 90 mmHg for 30+ minutes — or pressors, inotropes or mechanical support just to hold 90 — plus hypoperfusion evidence; mixed cardiogenic-plus-distributive presentations are classified separately, so name both when both exist.^[34] Obstructive shock announces urgency by tempo: a potentially lethal, highly dynamic condition demanding expeditious purposeful diagnosis and rapid aimed therapy.^[35]

Two myth-busts belong at the bedside. In anaphylaxis, cutaneous signs are not defining and symptoms are not always immediate — and the dangerous habit is starting corticosteroids and antihistamines while reserving adrenaline for deterioration.^[36] In the post-laparotomy patient, the spiral is shared with the sepsis and compartment topics: contamination, third-spacing, large-volume resuscitation, polytransfusion and acidosis feeding each other.

^{[1] [22]}

Differential Diagnosis — four categories with the features that split them

^{[1] [32] [36]}

Clinical & Bedside Assessment — the right score in the right place

Match the score to the location — the surgical cohort proved they are not interchangeable. In 13,780 surgical intermediate and intensive care patients, qSOFA predicted mortality best on the intermediate unit (AUC 0.82) while SOFA won once ICU care was involved (0.73).^[6] So: qSOFA on the ward, SOFA in the unit — with the authors' own conclusion that qSOFA suits intermediate-care mortality prediction while SOFA quality rises with critical illness.^[6]

The ICU validation behind SOFA is absolute: among 184,875 infected ICU admissions, 18.7% died; SOFA rise of 2+ was present in 90.1% and discriminated mortality (AUROC 0.753) far above SIRS (0.589) or qSOFA (0.607).^[5] The qSOFA rule itself — one point each for systolic hypotension (100 or less), tachypnoea (22+/min) or altered mentation — was derived from 1.3 million encounters across 12 hospitals.^[3]

Investigations — lactate in context, responsiveness before fluids, echo to split the pump from the blockage

Time lactate, do not just trend it. The flow-dependent window is 6 to 12 hours; beyond it, isolated persistent elevation means metabolism, not flow — and must not drive more fluids.^[9] As a resuscitation goal, lactate clearance of at least 10% was tested head-to-head against central venous oxygen saturation of 70%+: 300 patients, 23% versus 17% in-hospital death, no significant difference, with both arms normalising venous pressure and MAP first.^[28]

Test responsiveness before every challenge. In many instances fluids give no haemodynamic benefit at all; excess is demonstrably harmful in ARDS, sepsis and septic shock; static preload markers have repeatedly proven unreliable.^[10] What works instead are dynamic indices — the change in cardiac output or stroke volume from heart-lung interaction, postural manoeuvres or mini-fluid challenges.^[10] Passive leg raise, pulse-pressure variation in ventilated patients without spontaneous effort, and stroke-volume response to 250 mL are the bedside forms of that principle.

Split pump from blockage with bedside echo: contractility and chamber size, IVC plethora versus collapse, tamponade physiology, absent lung sliding, RV dilatation and strain. For septic shock add cultures, source imaging and the source-control plan from the sibling topic; for bleeding add FAST, blood gas with calcium and lactate, and viscoelastic testing where available.^[8][1]

Management — Resuscitation: fluids, the EGDT reckoning, and the volume wars

Start with balanced crystalloids in sepsis. SMART randomized 15,802 critically ill adults across 5 ICUs: major adverse kidney events 14.3% with balanced crystalloids versus 15.4% with saline (odds ratio 0.91), with 30-day mortality 10.3% versus 11.1%.^[15] SALT-ED extended the signal to 13,347 non-critically-ill ED patients: hospital-free days identical (median 25 each), but kidney events 4.7% versus 5.6% (odds ratio 0.82).^[16] Europe agrees conditionally: ESICM gives conditional recommendations for balanced over saline in general critical illness (low certainty), sepsis (low) and kidney injury (very low).^[19]

Now carry the counterweight, because the fellow who quotes only SMART fails the viva. PLUS randomized 5,037 ANZ ICU patients to balanced multielectrolyte versus saline and found nothing: 90-day death 21.8% versus 22.0%.^[17] BEST-Living pooled individual data on 34,685 patients from 6 trials: 16.8% versus 17.3% in-hospital death (odds ratio 0.962, absolute difference −0.4 points) with 89.5% posterior probability of benefit — real, but small.^[18] The honest synthesis: balanced first in sepsis, modest gains expected, saline kept for the head-injured (below).

Tell the EGDT story in one breath. Rivers 2001 (n=263): protocolised early goal-directed therapy cut in-hospital death from 46.5% to 30.5%.^[11] Then the multicentre reckoning: ARISE (n=1600, 51 ANZ centres) 18.6% versus 18.8% with more fluids, pressors, transfusions and dobutamine in the protocol arm and no difference in survival, organ support or stay; PROMISE (n=1260, 56 English hospitals) 29.5% versus 29.2% with worse organ scores, more cardiovascular support, longer ICU and costs judges unlikely to be cost-effective; PRISM individual-data meta-analysis (n=3723, 138 hospitals, 7 countries) 24.9% versus 25.4% (odds ratio 0.97) with more ICU and cardiovascular-support days and higher costs.^[12][13][14] Protocolised goals never beat attentive usual care — resuscitate to perfusion with reassessment, not to a central-venous number.

Resolve the volume war the same way: neither side wins. CLOVERS (n=1563, 60 US centres) separated volumes by a median 2,134 mL with earlier, longer pressor use in the restrictive arm — and 90-day pre-discharge death 14.0% versus 14.9%, no difference.^[20] CLASSIC (n=1554 ICU septic shock) separated medians 1,798 versus 3,811 mL — and 90-day death 42.3% versus 42.1%, no difference.^[21] So give fluids as reassessed challenges with dynamic indices, start pressors early rather than drowning the patient toward a target, and stop when perfusion answers.^[10][20]

Management — Definitive & Stepwise: pressors, steroids, blood, TXA, cause control

Pressors: norepinephrine first, dopamine never first. SOAP II randomized 1,679 shocked patients: 28-day death 52.5% dopamine versus 48.5% norepinephrine (no significant difference) — but arrhythmia 24.1% versus 12.4%, and dopamine raised 28-day death in the 280 cardiogenic-shock patients.^[22] The meta-analytic verdict: across 32 trials and 3,544 patients, norepinephrine versus dopamine cut all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.89, absolute reduction 11%, number needed to treat 9) with fewer adverse events and arrhythmias.^[23] The network analysis adds vasopressin over dopamine for mortality (odds ratio 0.68) and confirms dopamine's arrhythmia excess over norepinephrine (odds ratio 2.69).^[24] Ladder: norepinephrine to MAP 65+, add vasopressin/second agent, avoid dopamine in septic and cardiogenic shock.^[22][23]

Steroids: adjuncts for shock reversal, never mortality drugs. ADRENAL randomized 3,800 ventilated septic-shock patients to hydrocortisone 200 mg/day or placebo: 90-day death 27.9% versus 28.8% (odds ratio 0.95, no difference) — but shock resolved in a median 3 versus 4 days (hazard ratio 1.32).^[25] APROCCHSS randomized 1,241 patients to hydrocortisone-plus-fludrocortisone: 90-day death 43.0% versus 49.1% (relative risk 0.88), with 17 versus 15 vasopressor-free days — priced in hyperglycaemia.^[26] Present both without forcing agreement: consider steroids where pressors will not wean, expect faster reversal, do not promise survival.^[25][26]

Blood: ratio transfusion for haemorrhagic shock. PROPPR randomized 680 severely injured patients across 12 level-I centres to 1:1:1 versus 1:1:2 plasma:platelets:red cells: no mortality difference at 24 hours (12.7% versus 17.0%) — but exsanguination death fell (9.2% versus 14.6%), more 1:1:1 patients achieved haemostasis, and complications did not differ.^[29] Ratio resuscitation buys haemostasis, not survival statistics.

Tranexamic acid: 1 g + 1 g, as early as possible. CRASH-2 randomized 20,211 bleeding trauma patients across 274 hospitals in 40 countries to 1 g over 10 minutes then 1 g over 8 hours within 8 hours of injury: all-cause death 14.5% versus 16.0% (relative risk 0.91), bleeding death 4.9% versus 5.7% (relative risk 0.85).^[30] Timing is everything: ≤1 hour cut bleeding death (relative risk 0.68), 1-to-3 hours still helped (0.79), beyond 3 hours raised it (1.44) — tranexamic acid should be given as early as possible to bleeding trauma patients.^[31]

Cause control in parallel — the subtype moves. Septic: source control with antibiotics and organ support, urgently not eventually (sibling topic owns the clock).^[8] Cardiogenic infarct shock: early culprit-vessel revascularisation, with temporary circulatory support improving survival in selected patients.^[33] Obstructive: immediate life-saving intervention for the blockage.^[1][35] Neurogenic: euvvolaemia with crystalloids plus MAP augmentation with pressors matched to injury level and haemodynamics.^[32]

^{[1] [10] [22] [29] [30] [8]}

Specific Subtypes & Scenarios — each shock on its own page

Septic shock. Identify by Sepsis-3 (pressor for MAP 65+ plus lactate above 2 after fluids, mortality above 40%), resuscitate balanced-first with norepinephrine-first, reassess to perfusion not numbers, add steroids only for refractory shock — with the full fever-to-rescue postoperative arc in the sibling topic.^{[2][15][22][27][25]}

Haemorrhagic shock. Absolute volume loss demands blood as fluid: 1:1:1 ratios to haemostasis, TXA 1 g + 1 g with the ≤1 h / 1-to-3 h / after-3 h gradient, operative or angiographic haemostasis without delay.^{[1][29][30][31]}

Cardiogenic shock. Hypoperfusion with inadequate output from pump failure; SHARC definition (systolic below 90 for 30+ minutes or support to hold 90, plus hypoperfusion); early culprit revascularisation in infarct shock; temporary support in selected patients; dopamine specifically harmful here.^[33][34][22]

Obstructive shock. PE (intravascular, RV afterload), tamponade and tension (extravascular compression) — the most time-critical category, diagnosed purposefully and treated by immediate relief.^[35][1]

Neurogenic shock. Level-rule resuscitation: euvvolaemia, then pressors chosen by injury level and presenting haemodynamics (bradycardic high lesions need chronotropic/inotropic thinking, pooling low lesions need tone) — with haemorrhage assumed concurrent until excluded.^[32]

Anaphylactic shock. Adrenaline first, always — the steroids/antihistamines-first sequence and the must-have-rash, must-be-immediate beliefs are the documented misconceptions.^[36] (Milligram dosing lives in anaphylaxis guidelines outside this pack's verified set — state the sequence, not numbers you cannot source.)

Complications & Pitfalls — the errors examiners reward you for naming

The dopamine trap — neutrality on death, double the arrhythmia, harm in cardiogenic shock. Norepinephrine first, NNT 9.^[22][23]

The fluid trap — static markers unreliable, challenges often benefit-free, excess harmful in ARDS and sepsis. Dynamic indices before each bolus; CLOVERS and CLASSIC prove volume strategy alone never decided survival.^[10][20][21]

The lactate trap — late persistent lactate without hypoperfusion is metabolic, not flow. More fluids is overintervention; ANDROMEDA's perfusion-first posterior above 90% is the shield.^[9][27]

The TXA-timing trap — after 3 hours the relative risk is 1.44 for bleeding death. Late TXA is not harmless.^[31]

The TBI exception — BEST-Living: balanced fluids raised TBI death (19.1% versus 14.7%, odds ratio 1.424); ESICM conditionally recommends saline over balanced in TBI. The head-injured shocked patient gets saline.^[18][19]

The anaphylaxis-sequence trap — steroids/antihistamines first with adrenaline reserved for deterioration is exactly backwards.^[36]

Prognosis & Disposition — the ladder and where the patient goes

^{[7] [5] [4] [22] [21] [30]}

Every shocked surgical patient goes to ICU-level care with perfusion-targeted monitoring — ward care after stabilisation is a failure-to-rescue setup. Modifiers: pressor-plus-lactate physiology, TBI, age and frailty, inadequate source control, delayed haemostasis. Discharge with explicit re-escalation triggers: MAP, urine, mentation, refill, lactate trajectory.^[2][18]

Special Populations — TBI, cirrhosis, elderly, pregnancy

• Traumatic brain injury plus shock: resuscitate with saline, not balanced — the harm signal (odds ratio 1.424) plus the conditional guideline agree.^[18][19]
• Cirrhosis: ESICM conditionally favours albumin over crystalloids — the one population where colloid leads.^[19]
• Elderly and frail: lower reserve, earlier pressors, dynamic testing before each bolus; the restrictive arms' earlier vasopressor use is the model, not the delay.^[20][10]
• Pregnancy: no verified obstetric-shock numbers sit in this pack — manage tilt, airway, transfusion and cause priorities by principle and name the evidence gap rather than inventing numbers.

Evidence, Guidelines & Regional Differences — the three stories and who led them

• The EGDT story (global rise and fall): single-centre Rivers promise → ANZ ARISE, English PROMISE and PRISM individual-data negatives → protocols retired, perfusion-targeted usual care kept.^{[11][12][13][14]}
• The fluids story (US/ANZ/Europe): Vanderbilt SMART/SALT-ED signal → ANZ PLUS null → BEST-Living small probable benefit → ESICM conditional balanced-first (with TBI and cirrhosis exceptions); CLOVERS/CLASSIC neutral on how much.^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}
• The pressor–steroid–perfusion story: SOAP II plus Avni/network analyses for norepinephrine-first → ADRENAL null-but-faster versus APROCCHSS benefit for steroids-as-adjuncts → Jones equivalence then ANDROMEDA perfusion-first for targets.^{[22][23][24][25][26][28][27]}
• The blood story (US/UK-global): PROPPR ratio-to-haemostasis and CRASH-2 early-TXA gradients — transfusion and antifibrinolytic practice both rest on these two trials.^[29][30][31]
• Sibling-topic boundary: postoperative sepsis owns fever timing, scores-by-location detail, hour-1 antibiotics and leak hunting; surgical sepsis and source control owns the intra-abdominal-infection framework — this topic owns classification and resuscitation. Cite each where it lives.

Exam Pearls — the one-liners that score

• Four compartments: blood/fluids, vascular, cardiac, blockage — one mismatch (supply versus demand).^[1]
• Sepsis-3 in one breath: dysregulated response + SOFA 2+ (above 10%); shock = pressor for MAP 65+ plus lactate above 2 (above 40%); qSOFA = rate 22+, mentation, systolic 100 or less.^[2]
• Pressors: norepinephrine first — NNT 9 over dopamine, half the arrhythmia.^[23][22]
• TXA: 1 g + 1 g — ≤1 h best (0.68), 1-to-3 h helps (0.79), after 3 h harms (1.44).^[30][31]
• Ratio: 1:1:1 never moved 30-day mortality — it cut exsanguination death and bought haemostasis.^[29]
• Steroids: ADRENAL null-but-faster versus APROCCHSS benefit — adjuncts for reversal, not survival drugs.^[25][26]
• TBI exception: saline, not balanced, with brain injury.^[18][19]
• Lactate honesty: flow phase 6-to-12 h, metabolic after — normal perfusion plus high lactate means stop, not pour.^[9]

Revision summary

Classify first — four compartments, one supply-demand mismatch — with Sepsis-3 numbers (SOFA 2+, shock pressor-plus-lactate, qSOFA bedside) and the score matched to location (qSOFA 0.82 intermediate, SOFA 0.75 ICU).^[1][2][6] Resuscitate to perfusion: balanced crystalloids (SMART/SALT-ED signal, PLUS null, BEST-Living small benefit, ESICM conditional) as reassessed dynamic challenges — CLOVERS/CLASSIC prove volume alone never won — with norepinephrine first (NNT 9, half the arrhythmia) and perfusion over lactate (ANDROMEDA posterior above 90%).^{[15][17][18][19][10][20][21][23][27]} Add steroids only for refractory shock (ADRENAL faster, APROCCHSS fewer deaths, both honest), transfuse bleeding 1:1:1 to haemostasis, give TXA 1 g + 1 g inside 3 hours (never after), and fix each cause on its own terms — revascularise the culprit, decompress the blockage, match pressors to cord level, adrenaline first in anaphylaxis — with saline for the head-injured.^{[25][26][29][30][31][33][35][32][36][18]}

The surgical denominator: 13,780 surgical IMCU/ICU patients with 3.3% overall death — IMCU 0.6%, ICU 6.5%, combined 5.8%.^[4][7][6] CLOVERS ran restrictive −2134 mL and CLASSIC 1798 versus 3811 mL — neither strategy won on death.^[20][21]

References36ShowHide

1. [1]Standl T, Annecke T, Cascorbi I, Heller AR, et al. The Nomenclature, Definition and Distinction of Types of Shock. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2018.PMID 30573009
2. [2]Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 2016.PMID 26903338
3. [3]Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, Brunkhorst FM, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 2016.PMID 26903335
4. [4]Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, Seymour CW, et al. Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 2016.PMID 26903336
5. [5]Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, McGloughlin S, et al. Prognostic Accuracy of the SOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and qSOFA Score for In-Hospital Mortality Among Adults With Suspected Infection Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. JAMA, 2017.PMID 28114553
6. [6]Koch C, Edinger F, Fischer T, Brenck F, et al. Comparison of qSOFA score, SOFA score, and SIRS criteria for the prediction of infection and mortality among surgical intermediate and intensive care patients. World J Emerg Surg, 2020.PMID 33239088
7. [7]Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, Murphy DJ, et al. Incidence and Trends of Sepsis in US Hospitals Using Clinical vs Claims Data, 2009-2014. JAMA, 2017.PMID 28903154
8. [8]Vincent JL Update on surgical sepsis syndrome. Br J Surg, 2017.PMID 28121032
9. [9]Castro R, Hernández G, Kattan E, Bakker J What every intensivist should know about the biphasic kinetics of lactate in septic shock. J Crit Care, 2026.PMID 41101140
10. [10]Monnet X, Teboul JL Prediction of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients. Ann Transl Med, 2020.PMID 32647715
11. [11]Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, Ressler J, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med, 2001.PMID 11794169
12. [12]Peake SL, Delaney A, Bailey M, Bellomo R, et al. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med, 2014.PMID 25272316
13. [13]Mouncey PR, Osborn TM, Power GS, Harrison DA, et al. Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med, 2015.PMID 25776532
14. [14]Rowan KM, Angus DC, Bailey M, Barnato AE, et al. Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis. N Engl J Med, 2017.PMID 28320242
15. [15]Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, Ehrenfeld JM, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29485925
16. [16]Self WH, Semler MW, Wanderer JP, Wang L, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Noncritically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29485926
17. [17]Finfer S, Micallef S, Hammond N, Navarra L, et al. Balanced Multielectrolyte Solution versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med, 2022.PMID 35041780
18. [18]Zampieri FG, Cavalcanti AB, Di Tanna GL, Damiani LP, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline for critically ill patients (BEST-Living): a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med, 2024.PMID 38043564
19. [19]Arabi YM, Belley-Cote E, Carsetti A, De Backer D, et al. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids. Intensive Care Med, 2024.PMID 38771364
20. [20]Shapiro NI, Douglas IS, Brower RG, Brown SM, et al. Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension. N Engl J Med, 2023.PMID 36688507
21. [21]Meyhoff TS, Hjortrup PB, Wetterslev J, Sivapalan P, et al. Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med, 2022.PMID 35709019
22. [22]De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, Madl C, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med, 2010.PMID 20200382
23. [23]Avni T, Lador A, Lev S, Leibovici L, et al. Vasopressors for the Treatment of Septic Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One, 2015.PMID 26237037
24. [24]Nagendran M, Maruthappu M, Gordon AC, Gurusamy KS Comparative safety and efficacy of vasopressors for mortality in septic shock: A network meta-analysis. J Intensive Care Soc, 2016.PMID 28979478
25. [25]Venkatesh B, Finfer S, Cohen J, Rajbhandari D, et al. Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29347874
26. [26]Annane D, Renault A, Brun-Buisson C, Megarbane B, et al. Hydrocortisone plus Fludrocortisone for Adults with Septic Shock. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29490185
27. [27]Zampieri FG, Damiani LP, Bakker J, Ospina-Tascón GA, et al. Effects of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status versus Serum Lactate Levels among Patients with Septic Shock. A Bayesian Reanalysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2020.PMID 31574228
28. [28]Jones AE, Shapiro NI, Trzeciak S, Arnold RC, et al. Lactate clearance vs central venous oxygen saturation as goals of early sepsis therapy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2010.PMID 20179283
29. [29]Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, Fox EE, et al. Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2015.PMID 25647203
30. [30]Shakur H, Roberts I, Bautista R, Caballero J, et al. Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet, 2010.PMID 20554319
31. [31]Roberts I, Shakur H, Afolabi A, Brohi K, et al. The importance of early treatment with tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients: an exploratory analysis of the CRASH-2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2011.PMID 21439633
32. [32]Iovine JA, Villanueva RD, Werth CM, Hlavacek NL, et al. Contemporary hemodynamic management of acute spinal cord injuries with intravenous and enteral vasoactive agents: A narrative review. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 2022.PMID 35677966
33. [33]Lüsebrink E, Binzenhöfer L, Adamo M, Lorusso R, et al. Cardiogenic shock. Lancet, 2024.PMID 39550175
34. [34]Berg DD, Bohula EA, Patel SM, Alfonso CE, et al. Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) consensus definitions. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 2024.PMID 39208447
35. [35]Pich H, Heller AR [Obstructive shock]. Anaesthesist, 2015.PMID 25994928
36. [36]Grenar P, Šrotová A Anaphylaxis - myths and facts. Cas Lek Cesk, 2026.PMID 42601202