Skip to main content
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Download PDF
  • Research Articles
  • Open access
  • Published:

Effect of intravenous fluid volume on biomarkers of endothelial glycocalyx shedding and inflammation during initial resuscitation of sepsis

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental volume 11, Article number: 21 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the effect of IV fluid resuscitation on endothelial glycocalyx (EG) shedding and activation of the vascular endothelium and inflammation.

Materials and methods

A planned biomarker sub-study of the REFRESH trial in which emergency department (ED) patients) with suspected sepsis and hypotension were randomised to a restricted fluid/early vasopressor regimen or IV fluid resuscitation with later vasopressors if required (usual care). Blood samples were collected at randomisation (T0) and at 3 h (T3), 6 h (T6)- and 24 h (T24) for measurement of a range of biomarkers if EG shedding, endothelial cell activation and inflammation.

Results

Blood samples were obtained in 95 of 99 enrolled patients (46 usual care, 49 restricted fluid). Differences in the change in biomarker over time between the groups were observed for Hyaluronan (2.2-fold from T3 to T24, p = 0.03), SYN-4 (1.5-fold from T3 to T24, P = 0.01) and IL-6 (2.5-fold from T0 to T3, p = 0.03). No difference over time was observed between groups for the other biomarkers.

Conclusions

A consistent signal across a range of biomarkers of EG shedding or of endothelial activation or inflammation was not demonstrated. This could be explained by pre-existing EG shedding or overlap between the fluid volumes administered in the two groups in this clinical trial.

Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN126160000006448 Registered 12 January 2016.

Introduction

Sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated response to infection, with septic shock being a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory and cellular/metabolic abnormalities are profound enough to substantially increase mortality [1]. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign suggest initial resuscitation with at least 30 ml/kg of isotonic crystalloid fluid to optimise cardiac output and restore perfusion in septic shock, although this is based upon consensus rather than high-level evidence [2]. In the past decade evidence has emerged which questions the effectiveness and safety of this approach [3,4,5,6]. Some have promoted more sparing use of fluids and earlier introduction of vasopressor medications to restore perfusion [7]. The resulting uncertainty has led to substantial practice variation [8].

In a landmark clinical trial of fluid bolus therapy in children with hypoperfusion in resource-poor settings in Africa, the excess mortality in those children treated with fluids was found to be due to cardiovascular collapse [9]. This finding is consistent with a preclinical trial in an experimental ovine sepsis model, where initial fluid resuscitation resulted in an increased subsequent requirement for vasopressors [10]. One suggested mechanism for harm with IV fluids is an impact on the endothelial surface layer due to shedding of the endothelial glycocalyx (EG) and consequently propagation of systemic inflammation [11, 12]. Although studying the EG in vivo is challenging, measurement of the soluble components of the EG such as the proteoglycan Syndecan molecules and glycosaminoglycans such as Hyaluronan and Heparan Sulphate in blood may be used as a surrogate indicator for the extent of EG shedding [13]. Clinical studies in sepsis have demonstrated variable associations between IV fluid volume and the level of biomarkers of EG shedding [14,15,16,17]. Furthermore, studies in healthy subjects and perioperative settings may not be relevant to critical illnesses, such as sepsis, where EG shedding is already occurring [18].

The Restricted Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis-associated Hypotension (REFRESH) trial was a multicentre randomised trial designed to determine the feasibility of comparing a fluid-restricted/early vasopressor regimen compared to usual care to achieve perfusion targets during the early resuscitation of patients with suspected septic shock in the emergency department [19]. The aim of this planned sub-study was to test the hypothesis that IV fluid is a mediator of EG shedding, endothelial cell activation and inflammation during the resuscitation phase of septic shock [20].

Methods

Participants and setting

The methods for the REFRESH trial have previously been described [19, 20]. Briefly, patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of eight Australian hospitals with clinically suspected infection who had a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of < 100 mmHg despite a minimum of 1000 ml crystalloid fluids were randomised to either (1) the early commencement of a vasopressor infusion with limited IV fluid boluses administered for defined indications (restricted fluids) or (2) additional IV fluid boluses with later introduction of vasopressors, if required, to achieve the clinically desired blood pressure target (usual care). The haemodynamic resuscitation protocol was followed for the first 6 h and up to 24 h for those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A summary of the trial interventions and procedures is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart summarising trial interventions

Full size image

Research samples

Research blood sampling was performed at randomisation and at 3, 6 and at 24 h later (T0, T3, T6 and T24). Following collection, samples were processed within 2 h with serum collected by centrifugation at 3000 RPM for 10 min, followed by storage in 0.5 ml aliquots at − 80 °C. Samples were subsequently transported for batch analysis at the laboratory of the Centre for Clinical Research in Emergency Medicine in Perth, Australia. We selected the following biomarkers based upon prior work by our group and others. EG shedding: Syndecan 1 (SYN-1), Syndecan 4 (SYN-4), Hyaluronan, Heparan Sulphate. Endothelial Cell activation: Intercellular Adhesion Molecule (ICAM), Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule (VCAM), E-Selectin, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-1 (VEGFR-1). Cardiac stretch: Pro-Atrial Natriuretic Peptide (Pro-ANP); Renal Injury: Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL); Systemic inflammation: Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, Resistin. Plasma biomarker concentrations were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Cytometric Bead Array (CBA) techniques. Heparan Sulfate was measured in plasma using a fully validated, commercial kit, with a lower limit of detection of 0.19 ng/ml (Elabscience, TX, USA). ICAM, VCAM, E-Selectin, IL-10 and IL-6 were measured in a multiplex CBA format using Flex sets (BD Biosciences, CA, USA). All remaining biomarkers were measured using DuoSet ELISA kits (R&D Systems, MN, USA), and individually optimised prior to use to achieve average intra-plate coefficients of variation below 10%.

Statistical analyses

Biomarkers were analysed by group allocation according to intention to treat. Normality of distribution was assessed by inspection of box and whisker plots of values within assay limits by group at each timepoint. All variables demonstrated departures from normality and were subsequently log-transformed for analysis. An interaction of group and time was used in linear mixed models to assess whether the change over time in each marker differed between the groups. For biomarkers, where some values lay outside the limit of detection for the assay, random effects Tobit regression was used. These analysis techniques retain patients without biomarker data at all timepoints in the analysis by utilising maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). MLE uses all available information to calculate the most likely parameter estimates at the sample level as opposed to imputing values at the individual level. Results are reported as fold changes after exponentiating coefficients derived on the log scale. A per-protocol analysis was also undertaken excluding those cases in which there was a deviation from protocol regarding the recommended fluid volumes in each arm. As an exploratory study, no adjustment was made for multiple testing and interactions with p values < 0.1 were considered to provide sufficient evidence to warrant further consideration. In this instance, Bootstrapping was employed to investigate sensitivity to sampling variation.

Results

The REFRESH trial enrolled a total of 99 participants randomised to one of the two treatment arms [19]. Mortality at 90 days was 4/48 (8%) and 3/47 (6%) in the restricted and usual care groups, respectively (two from each group were lost to follow up). Four participants had no research blood sampling, three of which were in the usual care group and one in the restricted fluids group leaving a total of 95 (46 usual care and 49 restricted fluid) in this analysis. Of the 95 cases in the sub-study, 68 (72%) had complete sampling at all four timepoints, 14 (15%) were sampled at 3 timepoints, 12 (13%) at two timepoints and one (1%) at one timepoint. The baseline characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the volume of IV fluids and use of vasopressors over the first 24 h of care. The haematocrit measured at T24 was 0.34 ± 0.06 in the usual care group and 0.34 ± 0.05 in the restricted group, p = 0.7. Table 3 shows the results of the biomarker analyses.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of study participants at randomisation
Full size table
Table 2 Fluid and vasopressor use
Full size table
Table 3 Biomarker values
Full size table

Endothelial glycocalyx markers

A significant difference in Hyaluronan levels over time was detected (interaction term p = 0.04), driven by opposing slope directions between the two groups for T3 to T24 and T6 to T24. This resulted in a 2.2-fold change in slope for T3 to T24 (p = 0.03) and a 2.6-fold change for T6 to T24 (p = 0.01) for the restricted fluid group compared to usual care.

There were no differences in absolute values at the T0 and T24 timepoints (Fig. 2a). For SYN-4 there was a significant difference over time between the groups (Interaction term p value 0.04) driven by a greater negative slope in the restricted fluid group compared to usual care, equating to a 1.6-fold change in slope between T3 and T24, p = 0.007 (Fig. 2b). For SYN-1 and Heparan Sulphate, no difference over time between the groups was found (interaction term p values 0.92 and 0.72, respectively).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Log (Ln) linear predicted means (with 95% confidence intervals) against time (h) for Hyaluronan, Syndecan-4 and Interleukin-6 for usual (standard) care and restricted fluid resuscitation. P values for interaction term for group*fluid; See Additional files 1 and 2 for details of analysis

Full size image

Natriuretic peptide

There was no difference between the groups in the change over time for the natriuretic peptide Pro-ANP (interaction term p value 0.31).

Endothelial cell activation markers

No differences between the groups were identified in the pattern over time of any biomarker associated with activation of endothelial cells. These were ICAM (p = 0.31), VCAM (p = 0.26), E-Selectin (p = 0.73), and VEGFR-1 (0.96).

Inflammatory and other biomarkers

For the cytokine IL-6, the pattern over time differed between the groups (interaction term p = 0.07) driven by a greater negative slope in the restricted fluids group (2.5-fold change in slope compared to usual care) between T0 and T3 (p = 0.03) (Fig. 2c). There were no significant differences between the groups in IL-10 (p = 0.22), Resistin (p = 0.43) and the renal injury biomarker NGAL (p = 0.15) over time.

A sensitivity analysis ‘per-protocol’ excluded six cases in the usual care group who did not receive the minimum recommended fluid volume of at least 1 L post randomisation and one case in the restricted fluid group who received more than the permitted fluid volume of 1.25 L in the first 6 h post randomisation. This did not alter the results of the primary analysis (data not shown). Bootstrapping of the analyses, where the interaction term p value was < 0.1 also did not alter the results. Further details of the results including boxplots for each biomarker by group at each timepoint is given in the supplementary appendix. Similarly, analysis of the EG biomarkers adjusted for pre-randomisaiton fluid volume did not yield different results.

Discussion

In this planned sub-study of the REFRESH trial, differences over time in the pattern of Hyaluronan, SYN-4 and IL-6 were observed during the first 24 h of care driven by greater or contrasting downward patterns in the restricted volume group involving the T3 and T6 timepoints. No differences were noted for other biomarkers of EG shedding, SYN1, Heparan Sulphate, nor for Pro-ANP, IL-10 and any biomarkers related to endothelial cell activation.

The question of the optimal approach to haemodynamic resuscitation has been identified as one of the top priorities for research in septic shock [21]. The conventional approach, supported by consensus guidelines, involves initial resuscitation with at least 30 ml/kg of crystalloid fluid, although this is not based upon high level clinical trial evidence [22]. Potential harm associated with IV fluids may be due to tissue oedema in the setting of increased capillary leakiness in sepsis [23]. Specifically, there has been a focus on how IV fluids may interact with the EG layer in the setting of critical illness [24]. Understanding the pathobiological mechanisms underpinning the effect of IV fluids is relevant to inform future trials focused on patient centred outcomes.

Previous studies have found evidence supporting an effect of IV fluids on the EG in sepsis. Pouska et al. demonstrated a persistent change in the perfusion boundary ratio on sublingual intravital microscopy, a surrogate measure of EG thickness, among 16 patients with sepsis undergoing fluid bolus administration [25]. Smart et al. found an association between fluid volume and hyaluronan during the first 3 h of resuscitation, although no relationship was seen for SYN-1 or SYN-4 [16]. Hippensteel et al. reported an association between Heparan Sulphate and the volume of IV fluids at 6 h [14]. Finally, in a preclinical ovine endotoxic shock model animals randomised to fluid resuscitation had a more rapid rate of rise in Hyaluronan compared to animals that did not, although the overall peak did not differ. It is noted, however, that Hyaluronan elevation in response to fluid resuscitation may be a reflection of return of hyaluronan to the circulation from interstitial fluid rather than shed from the EG [13].

In a multicentre study of 619 patients with sepsis, there was no association between fluid volume and SYN-1 on the first day of admission, although SYN-1 was associated with illness severity and mortality [26]. In a prospective study, Puskarich et al. found that elevated SYN-1 was associated with mortality but there was no relationship with the volume of fluid administered [27]. However, Saoraya et al. reported that SYN-1 measured at the time of admission was associated with subsequent fluid requirements as well as mortality, raising the question of whether the association was due to sicker patients requiring a greater volume of fluid [28]. In a randomised trial of a liberal versus restricted fluid resuscitation, the same authors measured SYN-1 levels at 6 h finding a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 (95% CI 0.66–1.020, p = 0.07), in favour of the restricted fluid regimen [15]. In our study, no relationship between fluid volume and SYN-1 was identified. Our finding of a difference in the pattern of SYN-4 between the groups is of interest, although SYN-4 has been relatively less studied as a biomarker of EG shedding [29]. The lack of an associated difference in SYN-1 or HS, however, increases the likelihood that this may be due to chance.

Overall, we found limited evidence for an effect of fluids on EG shedding. In support of the hypothesis are temporal changes in some biomarkers coinciding with the maximal difference in fluid volume during the first 6 h of treatment. Against is the lack of consistency across all EG and inflammatory markers, and the lack of any effect on changes in the endothelial activation biomarkers. Though there was a 20 ml/kg separation in fluid volume between the two study arms at 24 h, this difference may have been insufficient to yield a consistent effect on EG shedding. This is supported by there being no difference in Pro-ANP levels between the groups. In a preclinical endotoxic shock model, ANP was significantly higher in the fluid group [10]; however, Hippensteel et al. did not detect any association between ANP and fluid volume among patients with sepsis [14]. This is relevant, because one postulated mechanism of EG shedding due to fluid administration is the activation of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) by natriuretic peptides [30, 31]. In addition, we observed no difference between groups for markers of endothelial cell activation. The endothelium is considered to be a player in the pathogenesis of sepsis [12]. One suggested cause of harm with exogenous fluids in sepsis is oedema from increased vascular permeability due to endothelial activation in the setting of EG shedding [23], although recent experimental evidence has challenged this concept [32, 33].

Of some interest is the pattern of IL-6 with a steeper decline in the restricted fluids group which coincided with the period of maximal difference in fluid volume. As an acute phase pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 displayed a typical pattern of decline over the first 24 h [34]. The temporal pattern was similar to that of Hyaluronan which is itself a pro-inflammatory mediator [35].

Limitations

In critical illness, where EG shedding and inflammation are already established, identifying a consistent response to an intervention is challenged by the confounding effects of illness severity, the clinical heterogeneity of sepsis and the timing of presentation to hospital. In this pilot clinical trial set in the ED the overall severity of illness was lower compared to other sepsis studies. As a pragmatic clinical trial there were several protocol deviations which potentially impacted on separation; however, a ‘per-protocol’ analysis did not yield different results from the intention to treat analysis. Importantly, participants received at least 1 L of fluid prior to randomisation (Table 1) which means fluid mediated EG shedding may have occurred prior to T0 and early signals may have been missed, and subsequent sample collection was related to time rather than fluid volume administered. We undertook a sensitivity analysis adjusting for baseline fluid volume did not alter the results for the EG biomarkers. The limitations of serum biomarkers as measures of EG shedding has previously been described [18]. In vitro assessment of EG thickness is an alternative approach which should be considered in future studies.

One issue is the question of whether haemodilution may mask as significant difference in biomarkers measured between groups receiving different volumes of fluid. Some authors have adjusted biomarker results for albumin [11] or haemoglobin [36], although this is not standard. Uncertainty about the pharmacokinetics of these molecules means the validity of such adjustments is uncertain [18]. Of note, while haematocrit reduced by a similar amount in the first 24 h in both groups, there was no difference between the groups at T24, although this was not measured at the intervening timepoints. Finally, since this was an exploratory secondary analysis of a trial which was powered for a clinical feasibility outcome and as such the possibility of Type II error cannot be excluded.

Conclusions

The question of whether exogenous intravenous fluid has a detrimental effect on EG shedding and inflammation in the setting of sepsis remains unclear. This study did not demonstrate a consistent signal across a range of biomarkers of EG shedding or of endothelial activation or inflammation. Patient heterogeneity, low illness severity and insufficient separation between the groups in the overall fluid volume mean that an effect cannot be excluded. While the results of clinical trials are awaited, a judicious approach to fluid management in sepsis is still recommended [24].

Availability of data and materials

The data sets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ANP:

Atrial natriuretic peptide

ED:

Emergency Department

EG:

Endothelial glycocalyx

ICAM:

Intracellular adhesion molecule

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IL-6:

Interleukin-6

IL-10:

Interleukin-10

IV:

Intravenous

MLE:

Maximum likelihood estimation

NGAL:

Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin

REFRESH:

Restricted Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis-associated Hypotension

RPM:

Revolutions per minute

SBP:

Systolic blood pressure

SYN-1:

Syndecan-1

SYN-4:

Syndecan-4

VCAM:

Vascular cell adhesion molecule

VEGFR-1:

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1

References

  1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC (2016) The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 315:801–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, Machado FR, McIntyre L, Ostermann M, Prescott HC, Schorr C, Simpson S, Joost Wiersinga W, Alshamsi F, Angus DC, Arabi Y, Azevedo L, Beale R, Beilman G, Belley-Cote E, Burry L, Cecconi M, Centofanti J, Yataco AC, De Waele J, Dellinger RP, Doi K, Du B, Estenssoro E, Ferrer R, Gomersall C, Hodgson C, Moller MH, Iwashyna T, Jacob S, Kleinpell R, Klompas M, Koh Y, Kumar A, Kwizera A, Lobo S, Masur H, McGloughlin S, Mehta S, Mehta Y, Mer M, Nunnally M, Oczkowski S, Osborn T, Papathanassoglou E, Perner A, Puskarich M, Roberts J, Schweickert W, Seckel M, Sevransky J, Sprung CL, Welte T, Zimmerman J, Levy M (2021) Executive Summary: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Crit Care Med 49: 1974–1982

  3. Silversides JA, Major E, Ferguson AJ, Mann EE, McAuley DF, Marshall JC, Blackwood B, Fan E (2017) Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 43:155–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Acheampong A, Vincent JL (2015) A positive fluid balance is an independent prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. Crit Care 19:251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Maitland KKS, Opoka RO, Engoru C, Olupot-Olupot P, Akech SO, Nyeko R, Mtove G, Reyburn H, Lang T, Brent B, Evans JA, Tibenderana JK, Crawley J, Russell EC, Levin M, Babiker AG, Gibb DM, on behalf of the FEAST trial group (2011) Mortality after fluid olus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med 364:2483–2495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Andrews B, Semler MW, Muchemwa L, Kelly P, Lakhi S, Heimburger DC, Mabula C, Bwalya M, Bernard GR (2017) Effect of an early resuscitation protocol on in-hospital mortality among adults with sepsis and hypotension. JAMA 318:1233–1240

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Self WH, Semler MW, Bellomo R, Brown SM, deBoisblanc BP, Exline MC, Ginde AA, Grissom CK, Janz DR, Jones AE, Liu KD, Macdonald SPJ, Miller CD, Park PK, Reineck LA, Rice TW, Steingrub JS, Talmor D, Yealy DM, Douglas IS, Shapiro NI, Committee CP, Prevention N, Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network I (2018) Liberal versus restrictive intravenous fluid therapy for early septic shock: rationale for a randomized trial. Ann Emerg Med 72:457–466

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Keijzers G, Macdonald SP, Udy AA, Arendts G, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Blecher GE, Burcham J, Delaney A, Coggins AR, Fatovich DM, Fraser JF, Harley A, Jones P, Kinnear F, May K, Peake S, Taylor DM, Williams J, Williams P, Group AFS (2019) The Australasian Resuscitation In Sepsis Evaluation: FLUid or vasopressors In Emergency Department Sepsis, a multicentre observational study (ARISE FLUIDS observational study): Rationale, methods and analysis plan. Emerg Med Australas 31:90–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Maitland K, George EC, Evans JA, Kiguli S, Olupot-Olupot P, Akech SO, Opoka RO, Engoru C, Nyeko R, Mtove G, Reyburn H, Brent B, Nteziyaremye J, Mpoya A, Prevatt N, Dambisya CM, Semakula D, Ddungu A, Okuuny V, Wokulira R, Timbwa M, Otii B, Levin M, Crawley J, Babiker AG, Gibb DM, Group Ft (2013) Exploring mechanisms of excess mortality with early fluid resuscitation: insights from the FEAST trial. BMC Med 11:68

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Byrne L, Obonyo NG, Diab SD, Dunster KR, Passmore MR, Boon AC, Hoe LS, Pedersen S, Fauzi MH, Pimenta LP, Van Haren F, Anstey CM, Cullen L, Tung JP, Shekar K, Maitland K, Fraser JF (2018) Unintended consequences: fluid resuscitation worsens shock in an ovine model of endotoxemia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 198:1043–1054

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chappell D, Bruegger D, Potzel J, Jacob M, Brettner F, Vogeser M, Conzen P, Becker BF, Rehm M (2014) Hypervolemia increases release of atrial natriuretic peptide and shedding of the endothelial glycocalyx. Crit Care 18:538

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ince C, Mayeux PR, Nguyen T, Gomez H, Kellum JA, Ospina-Tascon GA, Hernandez G, Murray P, De Backer D, Workgroup AX (2016) The endothelium in sepsis. Shock 45:259–270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Smart L, Hughes D (2021) The effects of resuscitative fluid therapy on the endothelial surface layer. Front Vet Sci 8:661660

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hippensteel JA, Uchimido R, Tyler PD, Burke RC, Han X, Zhang F, McMurtry SA, Colbert JF, Lindsell CJ, Angus DC, Kellum JA, Yealy DM, Linhardt RJ, Shapiro NI, Schmidt EP (2019) Intravenous fluid resuscitation is associated with septic endothelial glycocalyx degradation. Crit Care 23:259

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Saoraya J, Wongsamita L, Srisawat N, Musikatavorn K (2021) The effects of a limited infusion rate of fluid in the early resuscitation of sepsis on glycocalyx shedding measured by plasma syndecan-1: a randomized controlled trial. J Intensive Care 9:1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Smart L, Macdonald SPJ, Burrows S, Bosio E, Arendts G, Fatovich DM (2017) Endothelial glycocalyx biomarkers increase in patients with infection during Emergency Department treatment. J Crit Care 42:304–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Macdonald S, Bosio E, Shapiro NI, Balmer L, Burrows S, Hibbs M, Jowitt T, Smart L, Arendts G, Fatovich D (2022) No association between intravenous fluid volume and endothelial glycocalyx shedding in patients undergoing resuscitation for sepsis in the emergency department. Sci Rep 12:8733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hahn RG, Patel V, Dull RO (2021) Human glycocalyx shedding: systematic review and critical appraisal. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 65:590–606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Macdonald SPJ, Keijzers G, Taylor DM, Kinnear F, Arendts G, Fatovich DM, Bellomo R, McCutcheon D, Fraser JF, Ascencio-Lane JC, Burrows S, Litton E, Harley A, Anstey M, Mukherjee A, investigators Rt (2018) Restricted fluid resuscitation in suspected sepsis associated hypotension (REFRESH): a pilot randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 44:2070–2078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Macdonald SPJ, Taylor DM, Keijzers G, Arendts G, Fatovich DM, Kinnear FB, Brown SGA, Bellomo R, Burrows S, Fraser JF, Litton E, Ascencio-Lane JC, Anstey M, McCutcheon D, Smart L, Vlad I, Winearls J, Wibrow B (2017) REstricted Fluid REsuscitation in Sepsis-associated Hypotension (REFRESH): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial. Trials 18:399

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Perner A, Gordon AC, Angus DC, Lamontagne F, Machado F, Russell JA, Timsit JF, Marshall JC, Myburgh J, Shankar-Hari M, Singer M (2017) The intensive care medicine research agenda on septic shock. Intensive Care Med 43:1294–1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lat I, Coopersmith CM, De Backer D, Research Committee of the Surviving Sepsis C, Members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee contributing to this article are as f, Co-chair AGA, Co-chair BB, Manhasset NY, Consultant SWA, Barcelona S, San Francisco CA, Pune I, Utrecht tN, Chicago IL, Sao Paulo B, Atlanta GA, Dublin I, New York NY, Consultant LUK, Research Committee of the Surviving Sepsis C, Members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee contributing to this article are as f, Co-chair AGA, Co-chair BB, Manhasset NY, Consultant SWA, Barcelona S, San Francisco CA, Pune I, Utrecht TN, Chicago IL, Sao Paulo B, Atlanta GA, Dublin I, New York NY, Consultant LUK, (2021) The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Fluid Resuscitation and Vasopressor Therapy Research Priorities in Adult Patients. Crit Care Med 49: 623-635

  23. Myburgh JA, Mythen MG (2013) Resuscitation fluids. N Engl J Med 369:1243–1251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Milford EM, Reade MC (2019) Resuscitation fluid choices to preserve the endothelial glycocalyx. Crit Care 23:77

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Pouska J, Tegl V, Astapenko D, Cerny V, Lehmann C, Benes J (2018) Impact of intravenous fluid challenge infusion time on macrocirculation and endothelial glycocalyx in surgical and critically ill patients. Biomed Res Int 2018:8925345

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Inkinen N, Pettila V, Lakkisto P, Kuitunen A, Jukarainen S, Bendel S, Inkinen O, Ala-Kokko T, Vaara ST, Group FS (2019) Association of endothelial and glycocalyx injury biomarkers with fluid administration, development of acute kidney injury, and 90-day mortality: data from the FINNAKI observational study. Ann Intensive Care 9:103

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Puskarich MA, Cornelius DC, Tharp J, Nandi U, Jones AE (2016) Plasma syndecan-1 levels identify a cohort of patients with severe sepsis at high risk for intubation after large-volume intravenous fluid resuscitation. J Crit Care 36:125–129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Saoraya J, Wongsamita L, Srisawat N, Musikatavorn K (2021) Plasma syndecan-1 is associated with fluid requirements and clinical outcomes in emergency department patients with sepsis. Am J Emerg Med 42:83–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nelson A, Johansson J, Tyden J, Bodelsson M (2017) Circulating syndecans during critical illness. APMIS 125:468–475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bruegger D, Schwartz L, Chappell D, Jacob M, Rehm M, Vogeser M, Christ F, Reichart B, Becker BF (2011) Release of atrial natriuretic peptide precedes shedding of the endothelial glycocalyx equally in patients undergoing on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Basic Res Cardiol 106:1111–1121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jedlicka J, Becker BF, Chappell D (2020) Endothelial glycocalyx. Crit Care Clin 36:217–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guerci P, Ergin B, Uz Z, Ince Y, Westphal M, Heger M, Ince C (2019) Glycocalyx degradation is independent of vascular barrier permeability increase in nontraumatic hemorrhagic shock in rats. Anesth Analg 129:598–607

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ergin B, Guerci P, Uz Z, Westphal M, Ince Y, Hilty M, Ince C (2020) Hemodilution causes glycocalyx shedding without affecting vascular endothelial barrier permeability in rats. J Clin Transl Res 5:243–252

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Macdonald SPJ, Bosio E, Neil C, Arendts G, Burrows S, Smart L, Brown SGA, Fatovich DM (2017) Resistin and NGAL are associated with inflammatory response, endothelial activation and clinical outcomes in sepsis. Inflamm Res 66:611–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Petrey AC, de la Motte CA (2014) Hyaluronan, a crucial regulator of inflammation. Front Immunol 5:101

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bihari S, Dixon DL, Painter T, Myles P, Bersten AD (2021) Understanding restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial results: did liberal fluids associate with increased endothelial injury markers? Crit Care Explor 3:e0316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Refresh trial investigators and participating hospitals: Armadale Health Service, WA (David McCutcheon, Ashes Mukherjee, Anton Leonard, Jonathan Burcham); Austin Health, VIC (David Taylor, Rinaldo Bellomo); Fiona Stanley Hospital, WA (Glenn Arendts, Edward Litton); Gold Coast University Hospital, QLD (Gerben Keijzers, Amanda Harley, James Winearls); Royal Hobart Hospital (Juan Carlos Ascencio-Lane, Simon Brown, David Cooper); Royal Perth Hospital, WA (Stephen Macdonald, Daniel Fatovich); Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, WA (Ioana Vlad, Bradley Wibrow, Matthew Anstey); The Prince Charles Hospital, QLD (Frances Kinnear, John Fraser, Sarah Hazelwood).

The study was endorsed by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Clinical Trials Group

Funding

The REFRESH Trial was funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation, Raine Medical Research Foundation and the Royal Perth Hospital Research Foundation. In-kind salary support from the Royal Perth Hospital Research Centre is gratefully acknowledged. SM is a Raine Foundation Clinician Research Fellow.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Clinical Research in Emergency Medicine, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, WA, Australia

    Stephen Macdonald, Erika Bosio, Glenn Arendts & Daniel Fatovich

  2. Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

    Stephen Macdonald, Erika Bosio, Sally Burrows, Glenn Arendts & Daniel Fatovich

  3. Emergency Department, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

    Stephen Macdonald & Daniel Fatovich

  4. Emergency Department, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

    Gerben Keijzers

  5. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

    Gerben Keijzers

  6. School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

    Gerben Keijzers

  7. Research Foundation, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

    Sally Burrows

  8. Research Centre, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

    Moira Hibbs & Helen O’Donoghue

  9. Emergency Department, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia

    David Taylor

  10. Emergency Department, Armadale Health Service, Perth, WA, Australia

    Ashes Mukherjee

  11. Department of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Frances Kinnear

  12. School of Science, Health Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia

    Lisa Smart

  13. Emergency Department, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, TAS, Australia

    Juan-Carlos Ascencio-Lane

  14. Intensive Care, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

    Edward Litton

  15. Critical Care Research Group, The Prince Charles Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    John Fraser

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

    Nathan I. Shapiro

  17. Emergency Department, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia

    Glenn Arendts

Authors
  1. Stephen Macdonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erika Bosio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerben Keijzers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sally Burrows
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moira Hibbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Helen O’Donoghue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ashes Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Frances Kinnear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lisa Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Juan-Carlos Ascencio-Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Edward Litton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. John Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Nathan I. Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Glenn Arendts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Daniel Fatovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

The REFRESH Trial Investigators

  • David McCutcheon
  • , Anton Leonard
  • , Jonathan Burcham
  • , Rinaldo Bellomo
  • , Glenn Arendts
  • , Edward Litton
  • , Amanda Harley
  • , James Winearls
  • , Juan Carlos Ascencio-Lane
  • , Simon Brown
  • , David Cooper
  • , Daniel Fatovich
  • , Ioana Vlad
  • , Bradley Wibrow
  • , Matthew Anstey
  •  & Sarah Hazelwood

Contributions

Trial design and funding: SM, GK, DT, FK, EL, JF, GA, DF, LS, NS; recruitment and data acquisition: SM, EB, GK, DT, AM, HO’D, MH, FK, JA-L, EL, GA, DF; data analysis and interpretation: SM, EB, SB, LS, NS; drafting and revision of manuscript: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Macdonald.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The trial was approved by the South Metropolitan Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 15-114) and Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/486) and written consent was obtained from the participant or their legally authorised representative. The trial was performed in accordance with the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Analysis of biomarkers in those treated per protocol.

Additional file 2.

Analysis of biomarkers from refresh RCT.

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/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macdonald, S., Bosio, E., Keijzers, G. et al. Effect of intravenous fluid volume on biomarkers of endothelial glycocalyx shedding and inflammation during initial resuscitation of sepsis. ICMx 11, 21 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00508-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00508-4

Keywords