Continuous vs Intermittent ß-Lactam Antibiotic Infusions in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The BLING III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Whether ß-lactam antibiotics administered by continuous compared with intermittent infusion reduces the risk of death in patients with sepsis is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate whether continuous vs intermittent infusion of a ß-lactam antibiotic (piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem) results in decreased all-cause mortality at 90 days in critically ill patients with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: An international, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted in 104 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, Belgium, France, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Recruitment occurred from March 26, 2018, to January 11, 2023, with follow-up completed on April 12, 2023. Participants were critically ill adults (≥18 years) treated with piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem for sepsis. Intervention: Eligible patients were randomized to receive an equivalent 24-hour dose of a ß-lactam antibiotic by either continuous (n = 3498) or intermittent (n = 3533) infusion for a clinician-determined duration of treatment or until ICU discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure up to 14 days after randomization; new acquisition, colonization, or infection with a multiresistant organism or Clostridioides difficile infection up to 14 days after randomization; ICU mortality; and in-hospital mortality. Results: Among 7202 randomized participants, 7031 (mean [SD] age, 59 [16] years; 2423 women [35%]) met consent requirements for inclusion in the primary analysis (97.6%). Within 90 days, 864 of 3474 patients (24.9%) assigned to receive continuous infusion had died compared with 939 of 3507 (26.8%) assigned intermittent infusion (absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -4.9% to 1.1%]; odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01]; P = .08). Clinical cure was higher in the continuous vs intermittent infusion group (1930/3467 [55.7%] and 1744/3491 [50.0%], respectively; absolute difference, 5.7% [95% CI, 2.4% to 9.1%]). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically different. Conclusions and Relevance: The observed difference in 90-day mortality between continuous vs intermittent infusions of ß-lactam antibiotics did not meet statistical significance in the primary analysis. However, the confidence interval around the effect estimate includes the possibility of both no important effect and a clinically important benefit in the use of continuous infusions in this group of patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03213990.

Effect of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract on Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Whether selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces mortality in critically ill patients remains uncertain. Objective: To determine whether SDD reduces in-hospital mortality in critically ill adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster, crossover, randomized clinical trial that recruited 5982 mechanically ventilated adults from 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia between April 2018 and May 2021 (final follow-up, August 2021). A contemporaneous ecological assessment recruited 8599 patients from participating ICUs between May 2017 and August 2021. Interventions: ICUs were randomly assigned to adopt or not adopt a SDD strategy for 2 alternating 12-month periods, separated by a 3-month interperiod gap. Patients in the SDD group (n = 2791) received a 6-hourly application of an oral paste and administration of a gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin for the duration of mechanical ventilation, plus a 4-day course of an intravenous antibiotic with a suitable antimicrobial spectrum. Patients in the control group (n = 3191) received standard care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 90 days. There were 8 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients with new positive blood cultures, antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs), and Clostridioides difficile infections. For the ecological assessment, a noninferiority margin of 2% was prespecified for 3 outcomes including new cultures of AROs. Results: Of 5982 patients (mean age, 58.3 years; 36.8% women) enrolled from 19 ICUs, all patients completed the trial. There were 753/2791 (27.0%) and 928/3191 (29.1%) in-hospital deaths in the SDD and standard care groups, respectively (mean difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -4.8% to 1.3%]; odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; P = .12). Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant differences. In the SDD vs standard care groups, 23.1% vs 34.6% had new ARO cultures (absolute difference, -11.0%; 95% CI, -14.7% to -7.3%), 5.6% vs 8.1% had new positive blood cultures (absolute difference, -1.95%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.4%), and 0.5% vs 0.9% had new C difficile infections (absolute difference, -0.24%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.1%). In 8599 patients enrolled in the ecological assessment, use of SDD was not shown to be noninferior with regard to the change in the proportion of patients who developed new AROs (-3.3% vs -1.59%; mean difference, -1.71% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.31%] and 0.88% vs 0.55%; mean difference, -0.32% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 5.47%]) in the first and second periods, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, SDD, compared with standard care without SDD, did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality. However, the confidence interval around the effect estimate includes a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389036.

Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) for fluid resuscitation have not been fully evaluated, and adverse effects of HES on survival and renal function have been reported. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7000 patients who had been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 6% HES with a molecular weight of 130 kD and a molar substitution ratio of 0.4 (130/0.4, Voluven) in 0.9% sodium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) for all fluid resuscitation until ICU discharge, death, or 90 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury and failure and treatment with renal-replacement therapy. RESULTS: A total of 597 of 3315 patients (18.0%) in the HES group and 566 of 3336 (17.0%) in the saline group died (relative risk in the HES group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.18; P=0.26). There was no significant difference in mortality in six predefined subgroups. Renal-replacement therapy was used in 235 of 3352 patients (7.0%) in the HES group and 196 of 3375 (5.8%) in the saline group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P=0.04). In the HES and saline groups, renal injury occurred in 34.6% and 38.0% of patients, respectively (P=0.005), and renal failure occurred in 10.4% and 9.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.12). HES was associated with significantly more adverse events (5.3% vs. 2.8%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients in the ICU, there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between patients resuscitated with 6% HES (130/0.4) or saline. However, more patients who received resuscitation with HES were treated with renal-replacement therapy. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; CHEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00935168.).

Hypoglycemia and risk of death in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Whether hypoglycemia leads to death in critically ill patients is unclear. METHODS: We examined the associations between moderate and severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose, 41 to 70 mg per deciliter [2.3 to 3.9 mmol per liter] and ≤40 mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter], respectively) and death among 6026 critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were randomly assigned to intensive or conventional glucose control. We used Cox regression analysis with adjustment for treatment assignment and for baseline and postrandomization covariates. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 6026 patients: 2714 (45.0%) had moderate hypoglycemia, 2237 of whom (82.4%) were in the intensive-control group (i.e., 74.2% of the 3013 patients in the group), and 223 patients (3.7%) had severe hypoglycemia, 208 of whom (93.3%) were in the intensive-control group (i.e., 6.9% of the patients in this group). Of the 3089 patients who did not have hypoglycemia, 726 (23.5%) died, as compared with 774 of the 2714 with moderate hypoglycemia (28.5%) and 79 of the 223 with severe hypoglycemia (35.4%). The adjusted hazard ratios for death among patients with moderate or severe hypoglycemia, as compared with those without hypoglycemia, were 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 1.62; P<0.001) and 2.10 (95% CI, 1.59 to 2.77; P<0.001), respectively. The association with death was increased among patients who had moderate hypoglycemia on more than 1 day (>1 day vs. 1 day, P=0.01), those who died from distributive (vasodilated) shock (P<0.001), and those who had severe hypoglycemia in the absence of insulin treatment (hazard ratio, 3.84; 95% CI, 2.37 to 6.23; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, intensive glucose control leads to moderate and severe hypoglycemia, both of which are associated with an increased risk of death. The association exhibits a dose-response relationship and is strongest for death from distributive shock. However, these data cannot prove a causal relationship. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; NICE-SUGAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00220987.).

Selective digestive tract decontamination in critically ill adults with acute brain injuries: a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute brain injuries or conditions. METHODS: We carried out a post hoc analysis from a crossover, cluster randomized clinical trial. ICUs were randomly assigned to adopt or not to adopt a SDD strategy for two alternating 12-month periods, separated by a 3-month inter-period gap. Patients in the SDD group (n = 2791; 968 admitted to the ICU with an acute brain injury) received a 6-hourly application of an oral paste and administration of a gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin for the duration of mechanical ventilation, plus a 4-day course of an intravenous antibiotic with a suitable antimicrobial spectrum. Patients in the control group (n = 3191; 1093 admitted to the ICU with an acute brain injury) received standard care. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 90 days. There were four secondary clinical outcomes: death in ICU, ventilator-, ICU- and hospital-free days to day 90. RESULTS: Of 2061 patients with acute brain injuries (mean age, 55.8 years; 36.4% women), all completed the trial. In patients with acute brain injuries, there were 313/968 (32.3%) and 415/1093 (38%) in-hospital deaths in the SDD and standard care groups (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.92; p = 0.004). The use of SDD was associated with statistically significant improvements in the four clinical secondary outcomes compared to standard care. There was no significant heterogeneity of treatment effect between patients with and without acute brain injuries (interaction p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial in critically ill patients with acute brain injuries receiving mechanical ventilation, the use of SDD significantly reduced in-hospital mortality in patients compared to standard care without SDD. These findings require confirmation.

Patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU: A mixed-methods study of patient and family perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to create a definition of patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding during critical illness as an outcome for a randomized trial. DESIGN: This was a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-center study with an instrument-building aim. In semi-structured individual interviews or focus groups we elicited views from survivors of critical illness and family members of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) regarding which features indicate important gastrointestinal bleeding. Quantitative demographic characteristics were collected. We analyzed qualitative data using inductive content analysis to develop a definition for patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding. SETTING: Canada and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 51 ICU survivors and family members of ICU patients. RESULTS: Participants considered gastrointestinal bleeding to be important if it resulted in death, disability, or prolonged hospitalization. The following also signaled patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding: blood transfusion, vasopressors, endoscopy, CT-angiography, or surgery. Whether an intervention evinced concern depended on its effectiveness, side-effects, invasiveness and accessibility; contextual influences included participant familiarity and knowledge of interventions and trust in the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of critical illness and family members described patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding differently than current definitions of clinically-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Low-Dose Hydrocortisone in Adults with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Trials and study-level meta-analyses have failed to resolve the role of corticosteroids in the management of patients with septic shock. Patient-level meta-analyses may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, particularly subgroup effects. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from septic shock trials investigating the adjunctive use of intravenous hydrocortisone. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, and it was also analyzed across predefined subgroups. Secondary outcomes included mortality at intensive care unit and hospital discharge, at 28 and 180 days, and vasopressor-, ventilator-, and organ failure­free days. Adverse events included superinfection, muscle weakness, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and gastroduodenal bleeding. RESULTS: Of 24 eligible trials (n=8528), 17 (n=7882) provided individual patient data, and 7 (n=5929) provided 90-day mortality. The marginal relative risk (RR) for 90-day mortality of hydrocortisone versus placebo was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.04; P=0.22; moderate certainty). It was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.92) for hydrocortisone with fludrocortisone and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12) without fludrocortisone. There was no significant differential treatment effect across subgroups. Hydrocortisone was associated with little to no difference in any of the secondary outcomes except vasopressor-free days (mean difference, 1.24 days; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.73; high certainty). Hydrocortisone may not be associated with an increase in the risk of superinfection (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.15; low certainty), hyperglycemia (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.12; low certainty), or gastroduodenal bleeding (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.48; low certainty). Hydrocortisone may be associated with an increase in the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.56 to 2.60; low certainty) and muscle weakness (n=2647; RR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.49 to 1.99; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In this patient-level meta-analysis, hydrocortisone compared with placebo was not associated with reduced mortality for patients with septic shock. (Funded by "Programme d'Investissements d'Avenir," a research Professorship from the National Institute of Health and Care Research, Leadership Fellowships from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and Emerging Leaders Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PROSPERO registration number, CRD42017062198.)

Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal target range for blood glucose in critically ill patients remains unclear. METHODS: Within 24 hours after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), adults who were expected to require treatment in the ICU on 3 or more consecutive days were randomly assigned to undergo either intensive glucose control, with a target blood glucose range of 81 to 108 mg per deciliter (4.5 to 6.0 mmol per liter), or conventional glucose control, with a target of 180 mg or less per deciliter (10.0 mmol or less per liter). We defined the primary end point as death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: Of the 6104 patients who underwent randomization, 3054 were assigned to undergo intensive control and 3050 to undergo conventional control; data with regard to the primary outcome at day 90 were available for 3010 and 3012 patients, respectively. The two groups had similar characteristics at baseline. A total of 829 patients (27.5%) in the intensive-control group and 751 (24.9%) in the conventional-control group died (odds ratio for intensive control, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.28; P=0.02). The treatment effect did not differ significantly between operative (surgical) patients and nonoperative (medical) patients (odds ratio for death in the intensive-control group, 1.31 and 1.07, respectively; P=0.10). Severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < or = 40 mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter]) was reported in 206 of 3016 patients (6.8%) in the intensive-control group and 15 of 3014 (0.5%) in the conventional-control group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in the median number of days in the ICU (P=0.84) or hospital (P=0.86) or the median number of days of mechanical ventilation (P=0.56) or renal-replacement therapy (P=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, international, randomized trial, we found that intensive glucose control increased mortality among adults in the ICU: a blood glucose target of 180 mg or less per deciliter resulted in lower mortality than did a target of 81 to 108 mg per deciliter. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00220987.)

The complications of opioid use during and post-intensive care admission: A narrative review.

Opioids are a commonly administered analgesic medication in the intensive care unit, primarily to facilitate invasive mechanical ventilation. Consensus guidelines advocate for an opioid-first strategy for the management of acute pain in ventilated patients. As a result, these patients are potentially exposed to high opioid doses for prolonged periods, increasing the risk of adverse effects. Adverse effects relevant to these critically ill patients include delirium, intensive care unit-acquired infections, acute opioid tolerance, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, persistent opioid use, and chronic post-intensive care unit pain. Consequently, there is a challenge of optimising analgesia while minimising these adverse effects. This narrative review will discuss the characteristics of opioid use in the intensive care unit, outline the potential short-term and long-term adverse effects of opioid therapy in critically ill patients, and outline a multifaceted strategy for opioid minimisation.

Pain assessment and analgesic management in patients admitted to intensive care: an Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study.

Objective: To describe pain assessment and analgesic management practices in patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand. Design, setting and participants: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day point prevalence study conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. Observational data were recorded for all adult patients admitted to an ICU without a neurological, neurosurgical or postoperative cardiac diagnosis. Demographic characteristics and data on pain assessment and analgesic management for a 24-hour period were collected. Main outcome measures: Types of pain assessment tools used and frequency of their use, use of opioid analgesia, use of adjuvant analgesia, and differences in pain assessment and analgesic management between postoperative and non-operative patients. Results: From the 499 patients enrolled from 45 ICUs, pain assessment was performed at least every 4 hours in 56% of patients (277/499), most commonly with a numerical rating scale. Overall, 286 patients (57%) received an opioid on the study day. Of the 181 mechanically ventilated patients, 135 (75%) received an intravenous opioid, with the predominant opioid infusion being fentanyl. The median dose of opioid infusion for ventilated patients was 140 mg oral morphine equivalents. Of the 318 non-ventilated patients, 41 (13%) received patient-controlled analgesia and 76 (24%) received an oral opioid, with the predominant opioid being oxycodone. Paracetamol was administered to 63 ventilated patients (35%) and 164 non-ventilated patients (52%), while 2% of all patients (11/499) received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Ketamine infusion and regional analgesia were used in 15 patients (3%) and 17 patients (3%), respectively. Antineuropathic agents (predominantly gabapentinoids) were used in 53 patients (11%). Conclusions: Although a majority of ICU patients were frequently assessed for pain with a validated pain assessment tool, cumulative daily doses of opioids were high, and the use of multimodal adjuvant analgesia was low. Our data on current pain assessment and analgesic management practices may inform further research in this area.

Randomised evaluation of active control of temperature versus ordinary temperature management (REACTOR) trial.

PURPOSE: It is unknown whether protocols targeting systematic prevention and treatment of fever achieve lower mean body temperature than usual care in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The objective of the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of temperature vs. ORdinary temperature management trial was to confirm the feasibility of such a protocol with a view to conducting a larger trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned 184 adults without acute brain pathologies who had a fever in the previous 12 h, and were expected to be ventilated beyond the calendar day after recruitment, to systematic prevention and treatment of fever or usual care. The primary outcome was mean body temperature in the ICU within 7 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ICU-free days and survival time censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Compared with usual temperature management, active management significantly reduced mean temperature. In both groups, fever generally abated within 72 h. The mean temperature difference between groups was greatest in the first 48 h, when it was generally in the order of 0.5 °C. Overall, 23 of 89 patients assigned to active management (25.8%) and 23 of 89 patients assigned to usual management (25.8%) died in hospital (odds ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.51-1.96, P = 1.0). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in ICU-free days or survival to day 90. CONCLUSIONS: Active temperature management reduced body temperature compared with usual care; however, fever abated rapidly, even in patients assigned to usual care, and the magnitude of temperature separation was small. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number, ACTRN12616001285448.

WSES consensus conference guidelines: monitoring and management of severe adult traumatic brain injury patients with polytrauma in the first 24 hours.

The acute phase management of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and polytrauma represents a major challenge. Guidelines for the care of these complex patients are lacking, and worldwide variability in clinical practice has been documented in recent studies. Consequently, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) decided to organize an international consensus conference regarding the monitoring and management of severe adult TBI polytrauma patients during the first 24 hours after injury. A modified Delphi approach was adopted, with an agreement cut-off of 70%. Forty experts in this field (emergency surgeons, neurosurgeons, and intensivists) participated in the online consensus process. Sixteen recommendations were generated, with the aim of promoting rational care in this difficult setting.

A comparison of epinephrine and norepinephrine in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there was a difference between epinephrine and norepinephrine in achieving a mean arterial pressure (MAP) goal in intensive care (ICU) patients. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomised-controlled trial. SETTING: Four Australian university-affiliated multidisciplinary ICUs. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients who required vasopressors for any cause at randomisation. Patients with septic shock and acute circulatory failure were analysed separately. INTERVENTIONS: Blinded infusions of epinephrine or norepinephrine to achieve a MAP >or=70 mmHg for the duration of ICU admission. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was achievement of MAP goal >24 h without vasopressors. Secondary outcomes were 28 and 90-day mortality. Two hundred and eighty patients were randomised to receive either epinephrine or norepinephrine. Median time to achieve the MAP goal was 35.1 h (interquartile range (IQR) 13.8-70.4 h) with epinephrine compared to 40.0 h (IQR 14.5-120 h) with norepinephrine (relative risk (RR) 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.12; P = 0.26). There was no difference in the time to achieve MAP goals in the subgroups of patients with severe sepsis (n = 158; RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.59-1.12; P = 0.18) or those with acute circulatory failure (n = 192; RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.62-1.27; P = 0.49) between epinephrine and norepinephrine. Epinephrine was associated with the development of significant but transient metabolic effects that prompted the withdrawal of 18/139 (12.9%) patients from the study by attending clinicians. There was no difference in 28 and 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the development of potential drug-related effects with epinephrine, there was no difference in the achievement of a MAP goal between epinephrine and norepinephrine in a heterogenous population of ICU patients.

The evidence for small-volume resuscitation with hyperoncotic albumin in critical illness.

Small-volume resuscitation of critically ill patients with hyperoncotic albumin offers a number of theoretical advantages, such as increasing intravascular volume in excess of the volume of fluid administered and reducing interstitial edema. Whilst iso-oncotic albumin has been shown to be equi-effective to isotonic saline for the resuscitation of critically ill patients without associated traumatic brain injury, the efficacy of hyperoncotic albumin for resuscitation has not been evaluated in large-scale randomized-controlled trials. Overall, the evidence for resuscitation with hyper-oncotic albumin is limited by studies of poor methodological quality with heterogenous study populations and control regimens. There is marginal qualitative evidence of improvements in surrogate outcomes in disparate patient populations, but no evidence of any survival benefit associated with resuscitation with hyperoncotic albumin. Given the lack of evidence and clinical uncertainty about the efficacy of hyperoncotic albumin, a large-scale randomized-controlled trial is required to determine its role in the acute resuscitation of hypovolemic or hypoalbuminemic critically ill patients.