Gen Surg Vivas · surgical-critical-care
Shock in the surgical patient — classify, resuscitate, defend the trials
Fellowship viva on surgical shock: four-category classification with Sepsis-3, EGDT-to-PRISM fluids reasoning, norepinephrine-first pressors, perfusion targets, and the septic source-control boundary.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
Write your answer
Saved on this device. No marking — you are the marker.
Examiner probes
- Classify him aloud — category, Sepsis-3 status, and the score you use where he is now.[1][2]
- Resuscitate him: your fluid, your evidence for and against balanced crystalloids, and where EGDT sits in your answer.[15][11][14][20]
- Pressors and targets: first agent, pressure floor, perfusion endpoints — and what you do with his lactate at hour 18 if perfusion is normal.[22][23][27][9]
- He has a tense abdomen with murky drain output on pressors — when do you operate, and what is the operation trying to achieve?[8][1]
Model responses
1. Distributive (septic) shock by Sepsis-3 — qSOFA 3 on the ward, SOFA in ICU. Four categories share supply-demand mismatch; this is the vascular compartment — relative hypovolaemia from redistribution, needing vasoconstrictors plus fluids.[1] He meets shock physiology: pressor-imminent hypotension with lactate 4.8 after fluids — the pressor-plus-lactate-above-2 combination with mortality above 40%.[2] Score qSOFA 3 here (rate 26, drowsy, systolic 86) — and move him to ICU where SOFA takes over, since qSOFA predicts best on the intermediate unit (AUC 0.82) and SOFA once ICU-involved.[6]
2. Balanced-crystalloid challenges with dynamic testing — EGDT retired, volumes neutral. Balanced first (SMART kidney-event signal), honestly held: PLUS null and BEST-Living small — so modest gains expected, saline kept for head injury.[15] EGDT answered in one breath: Rivers 30.5% versus 46.5% single-centre promise, then concordant multicentre negatives ending in PRISM (24.9% versus 25.4%, odds ratio 0.97, higher costs) — resuscitate to perfusion with reassessment, not to venous numbers.[11][14] Volume strategy alone never won either: CLOVERS separated 2,134 mL with no mortality difference — so challenges with responsiveness testing, early pressors, stop when perfusion answers.[20]
3. Norepinephrine first to MAP 65+, perfusion endpoints, lactate honesty at hour 18. Dopamine doubles arrhythmia (24.1% versus 12.4%) without mortality gain; norepinephrine carries NNT 9.[22][23] Then perfusion — mentation, urine, refill — because ANDROMEDA Bayesian analysis gives above-90% posterior probability that perfusion-targeting beats lactate-targeting (odds ratio 0.61).[27] At hour 18 with normal perfusion and persistent lactate: that is the metabolic second phase, not flow — do not pour more fluids.[9]
4. Resuscitate then operate urgently — source control is the treatment. Surgical sepsis is infection plus organ dysfunction treated by source control, antibiotics and organ support — and murky drain output with a tense abdomen on pressors is an operative abdomen once resuscitation allows.[8] The operation eliminates contamination definitively (washout, leak assessment, diversion by findings), not tentatively — with the postoperative leak-hunting and hour-1 detail owned by the sibling sepsis topic.
References12ShowHide
- [1]Standl T, Annecke T, Cascorbi I, et al. The Nomenclature, Definition and Distinction of Types of Shock. Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2018.PMID 30573009
- [2]Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA, 2016.PMID 26903338
- [6]Koch C, Edinger F, Fischer T, 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
- [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
- [11]Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med, 2001.PMID 11794169
- [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]Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med, 2018.PMID 29485925
- [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
- [22]De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med, 2010.PMID 20200382
- [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
- [27]Zampieri FG, Damiani LP, Bakker J, 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
- [8]Vincent JL Update on surgical sepsis syndrome. Br J Surg, 2017.PMID 28121032