Category: Critical Care
Keywords: Sepsis, Shock, Hypotension, Fluids, Ultrasound, Vasopressors (PubMed Search)
Posted: 11/4/2025 by Mark Sutherland, MD
Click here to contact Mark Sutherland, MD
Another month, another study of hemodynamic targets in sepsis… The age-old questions: is a MAP > 65 a good target for everybody, or should we individualize? Should we just give a bolus of fluids to everyone and then move to pressors, or should this strategy change patient to patient?
Huet et al have a preprint that'll appear in Intensive Care Medicine looking at this question in 517 patients. I can't reprint it here due to copyright (follow link below, go to full PDF and scroll to figures at bottom if curious), but basically their algorithm was 1) check if patient is fluid responsive via either echo or swan, 2) give fluid if yes, 3) do something else (pressors) if no.
Importantly the differences were not statistically significant, but they found a strong, nearly significant, trend towards benefit on SOFA score, ICU and hospital LOS in the “personalized therapy” group (also of note, these are dubious as patient oriented outcomes). The sickest patients (by SOFA) showed the most benefit.
Bottom Line: The “personalized hemodynamic therapy” literature continues to show a modest benefit of using tools like echo (e.g. LVOT VTI) to determine if the patient is fluid responsive (or fluid tolerant) and NOT give fluid (instead using pressors) if that is not the case, but for now there's relatively limited support for hyper-personalized approaches like varying MAP goals or otherwise mixing up your strategy. Some day we'll likely find a more nuanced approach, but for now I think a reasonable strategy in critically ill septic patients is to use ultrasound to determine if the patient needs fluid, if yes give fluid and reassess, and if not move to pressors, to maintain a MAP > 65.
