Research ArticleResearchMedication SafetyWorkflow

ARISE FLUIDS trial finds restrictive fluids with early vasopressors yields equivalent 90-day survival while reducing pulmonary edema in septic shock

The New England Journal of Medicine (PubMed)Oct 8, 2026

AI-summarized from the linked source. Educational brief, not medical advice.

Brief summary

In the ARISE FLUIDS randomized trial of 1,000 emergency department patients with septic shock, early vasopressor initiation combined with restrictive fluid volumes showed no difference in 90-day survival compared with liberal fluids, but significantly lowered pulmonary edema rates.

What NurseJet pulled from the source

Clinical equipoise has persisted regarding whether early septic shock resuscitation should emphasize large intravenous fluid boluses or prompt vasopressor administration with fluid restriction. The multicenter ARISE FLUIDS trial randomized 1,000 adult emergency department patients presenting with septic shock to either a restrictive fluid protocol with early vasopressors or a higher-volume fluid protocol with later vasopressors for up to 24 hours (analyzing 963 patients in the intention-to-treat population). Patients in the restrictive vasopressor group received a median of 1,108 mL less intravenous fluid over the first 24 hours (median difference -1,108 mL; 95% CI -1,395 to -850 mL) and had an 18.9 percentage point higher rate of vasopressor exposure. At day 90, the median days alive and out of the hospital was identical between groups (76 days vs 76 days; difference 0.0 days; 95% CI -2.7 to 2.7; P = 1.00). However, the restrictive fluid strategy significantly lowered the incidence of new-onset pulmonary edema compared with the liberal fluid arm (0.6% vs 5.0%; P < 0.001).

Why this matters for nurses

Emergency and critical care nurses frequently administer rapid fluid boluses during early sepsis alerts, sometimes facing fluid overload, worsening gas exchange, and acute respiratory decompensation. This trial demonstrates that initiating vasopressors early while restricting total fluid intake provides equivalent 90-day survival while avoiding excess fluid overload and reducing pulmonary edema nearly eightfold.

Bedside takeaway

In 1,000 ED patients with septic shock, early vasopressors with fluid restriction matched 90-day survival (76 vs 76 days alive and out of hospital) while reducing pulmonary edema (0.6% vs 5.0%).

Key takeaways

Multicenter randomized trial evaluated 1,000 adult emergency department patients with septic shock assigned to fluid restriction plus early vasopressors versus higher-volume fluid resuscitation.
Median days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 was identical across groups (76 days in both arms; P = 1.00).
The restrictive protocol delivered a median of 1,108 mL less intravenous fluid during the initial 24 hours of resuscitation.
Pulmonary edema occurred in significantly fewer patients in the restrictive vasopressor group compared to the higher-volume fluids group (0.6% vs 5.0%; P < 0.001).

Practice implications

Closely monitor fluid responsiveness rather than relying on routine reflex large-volume crystalloid boluses in septic shock. Coordinate early central or peripheral vasopressor infusion per unit protocol when mean arterial pressure remains refractory, and auscultate lung fields frequently to assess for early signs of pulmonary congestion.

Limitations & cautions

Conducted in emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand where baseline resuscitation practices and early critical care access may vary from other international healthcare systems; unblinded clinical intervention.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations

Exact source links

Open source

Public citations are filtered to exact credible source pages. Homepage-only or invalid links stay in admin review and are not shown here.

The New England Journal of Medicine (PubMed)

The New England Journal of Medicine (PubMed). Vasopressors or Fluids in Early Septic Shock.

Open original source

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42274006/

Professional education only

This summary does not replace clinical judgment, facility policy, provider orders, or official guidelines. Verify practice changes against the original source and local protocol.

Related briefs

More updates for this clinical area

Back to Discover

Neurosurgical review (PubMed)Oct 17, 2026Systematic Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies comprising 7,981 patients found extending single-agent antibiotic prophylaxis beyond one day did not reduce postoperative meningitis after endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery, whereas intraoperative CSF leak significantly increased infection risk.

Med-SurgAI summaryReview source

Systematic ReviewResearchInfection ControlMedication SafetyAI summary · original source linked below

Postoperative meningitis is an uncommon but severe complication following endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery (EESBS). While perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis is universally administered, the required duration remains controversial, frequently leading to prolonged, non-evidence-based antibiotic courses. Following PRISMA guidelines, researchers meta-analyzed 14 studies covering 7,981 patients receiving single-agent antibiotic prophylaxis categorized as ultra-short (≤1 day), short (1–3 days), or long (>3 days). The pooled incidence of postoperative meningitis across all cohorts was 1.38% (95% CI: 0.92%–2.08%; I² = 65.8%). Subgroup analysis showed comparable meningitis rates across duration cohorts: 1.24% for ultra-short prophylaxis (95% CI: 0.66%–2.32%), 1.20% for short prophylaxis (95% CI: 0.38%–3.70%), and 2.12% for long prophylaxis (95% CI: 0.82%–5.36%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.764). Meta-regression confirmed prophylaxis duration was not associated with meningitis (p = 0.487). Instead, higher study-level prevalence of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage was significantly associated with increased meningitis rates (β = 0.0389 per percentage point; p = 0.010).

Key takeaways

Meta-analysis evaluated 14 studies including 7,981 patients undergoing endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery.
Overall postoperative meningitis incidence was 1.38% (95% CI: 0.92%–2.08%).
Meningitis rates did not differ between ultra-short ≤1 day (1.24%), short 1–3 days (1.20%), or long >3 days (2.12%) antibiotic regimens (p = 0.764).
Intraoperative CSF leakage was a significant driver of postoperative meningitis (p = 0.010), while prolonged antibiotic coverage conferred no protective benefit.

Why this matters on shift

Infection preventionists and perioperative surgical nurses champion antimicrobial stewardship by stopping surgical prophylaxis within 24 hours post-procedure. This large-scale evidence confirms that extending prophylactic antibiotics beyond 24 hours does not prevent central nervous system infections in skull base surgery and reinforces focusing post-op surveillance on intraoperative CSF leak status rather than extended antibiotic exposure.

Bedside takeaway

In 7,981 skull base surgeries, postoperative meningitis incidence was 1.38% and did not differ between ≤1 day (1.24%) and >3 days (2.12%) of antibiotics, while CSF leak was the primary infection risk.

Nursing implications

Support timely discontinuation of perioperative antibiotics within 24 hours post-op in accordance with national surgical infection prevention guidelines, maintain high clinical vigilance for signs of CSF rhinorrhea, headache, nuchal rigidity, and fever, and ensure rapid diagnostic escalation if CSF drainage is suspected.

Limitations & cautions

Included cohorts were retrospective observational studies with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 65.8%); specific antibiotic choices and dosing regimens varied across surgical centers.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Neurosurgical review (PubMed). Duration of single-agent perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative meningitis after endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 7,981 patients.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Trauma, violence & abuse (PubMed)Oct 17, 2026Systematic Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 emergency department studies encompassing 7,498 women found intimate partner violence was associated with a three-fold increased risk of suicide attempt, with psychological violence showing a stronger association than physical violence.

Emergency PsychAI summaryReview source

Systematic ReviewResearchWorkflowQuality ImprovementAI summary · original source linked below

Women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and acute suicidality frequently seek medical evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), but the intersection between these two acute presentations is often overlooked during fast-paced triage. This systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis synthesized 20 ED-based studies comprising 7,498 women across three global databases. Investigators used random-effects models and evaluated study quality with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Overall, 22% (95% CI: 11%–36%) of women presenting to the ED for suicide-related care had a history of physical IPV, while 13% (95% CI: 8%–18%) of women with known IPV histories reported active suicidality. A history of IPV was associated with a three-fold increase in the risk of suicide attempt (risk ratio [RR] 3.00; 95% CI: 1.39–6.47). Notably, psychological IPV demonstrated a stronger association with suicide risk (RR 3.23; 95% CI: 1.68–6.19) than physical IPV alone (RR 2.00; 95% CI: 1.26–3.17).

Key takeaways

Systematic review synthesized 20 emergency department studies encompassing 7,498 women.
Nearly 1 in 4 women (22%; 95% CI: 11%–36%) presenting to the ED with suicidality had experienced physical IPV.
IPV was associated with a three-fold higher risk of suicide attempt (RR 3.00; 95% CI: 1.39–6.47).
Psychological IPV showed a higher risk ratio for suicide attempts (RR 3.23; 95% CI: 1.68–6.19) than physical IPV (RR 2.00; 95% CI: 1.26–3.17).

Why this matters on shift

Emergency nurses are the primary healthcare professionals conducting universal triage, suicide risk screening (e.g., C-SSRS), and domestic violence assessments. Recognizing that nearly one-quarter of suicidal female presentations co-occur with IPV—and that non-physical, psychological abuse carries an even higher relative risk for suicide attempt—demands that ED nursing assessments integrate trauma-informed safety planning rather than treating suicidality and relationship violence in isolation.

Bedside takeaway

In an ED meta-analysis of 7,498 women, intimate partner violence tripled suicide attempt risk (RR 3.00), with psychological IPV (RR 3.23) linked more strongly than physical IPV (RR 2.00).

Nursing implications

Conduct routine IPV and suicide screenings privately away from companions or visitors, assess for emotional and psychological coercion even when physical injury is absent, and connect patients showing combined risk immediately to hospital social work, victim advocacy, and safe crisis intervention pathways.

Limitations & cautions

High between-study heterogeneity across meta-analytic models (I² > 75%); high risk of bias identified in half of the included primary studies; relied largely on cross-sectional self-reported survey measures.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Trauma, violence & abuse (PubMed). Intimate Partner Violence and Suicide Risk among Women Presenting to Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Narrative Synthesis.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Anesthesia and analgesia (PubMed)Oct 16, 2026Systematic Review

A meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials with 3,344 surgical patients found perioperative ketamine and esketamine were associated with reduced postoperative delirium between days 2 and 7, but significantly increased postoperative dizziness.

Geriatrics Med-SurgAI summaryReview source

Systematic ReviewResearchMedication SafetyAI summary · original source linked below

Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common, distressing complication in older surgical patients, yet effective pharmacologic prevention options remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3,344 patients evaluated perioperative administration of ketamine (9 trials) and esketamine (16 trials) compared to placebo or standard care. Both agents were associated with reduced POD incidence (ketamine: risk ratio [RR] 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49–0.98; P = .04; esketamine: RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36–0.95; P = .03). Risk reductions were most evident with higher-dose regimens (single bolus: ketamine >0.5 mg/kg or esketamine >0.25 mg/kg; cumulative dose: ketamine >1.0 mg/kg or esketamine >0.5 mg/kg), bolus-plus-infusion administration, and in major surgical procedures. However, the preventative association was present only when delirium was assessed between postoperative days 2 and 7, not within the first 24 hours. Furthermore, ketamine/esketamine significantly increased the risk of postoperative dizziness (RR 1.45; 95% CI, 1.14–1.84; P = .002). Trial sequential analysis indicated that total evidence remains inconclusive due to insufficient overall sample size.

Key takeaways

Meta-analysis analyzed 25 RCTs with 3,344 patients receiving perioperative ketamine (9 trials) or esketamine (16 trials).
Both agents were associated with lower POD incidence versus control: ketamine RR 0.69 (P = .04) and esketamine RR 0.58 (P = .03).
Delirium reduction was apparent at postoperative days 2 to 7, but not during the initial 24 hours.
Dizziness risk was significantly elevated in treated patients (RR 1.45; 95% CI, 1.14–1.84; P = .002), and trial sequential analysis found cumulative sample size insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

Why this matters on shift

Surgical and post-anesthesia nurses monitor older adults recovering from general anesthesia for confusion, agitation, and fall risk. While ketamine and esketamine show potential neurocognitive protective signals beyond day 1, their heightened dizziness profile increases post-op balance instability, requiring cautious bedside mobility precautions rather than unreserved clinical adoption.

Bedside takeaway

In a meta-analysis of 25 RCTs (3,344 patients), perioperative ketamine (RR 0.69) and esketamine (RR 0.58) reduced delirium at days 2–7 but significantly increased dizziness (RR 1.45).

Nursing implications

Screen surgical patients systematically for emergence and delayed delirium using validated tools (such as CAM or CAM-ICU) through postoperative day 7, implement strict fall and dizziness precautions when ketamine derivatives are administered, and avoid assuming early alertness guarantees absence of delayed delirium.

Limitations & cautions

Trial sequential analysis confirmed current evidence remains inconclusive due to inadequate total information size; dizziness was increased (RR 1.45); high heterogeneity in surgical populations and anesthesia protocols.
AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Citations · exact source links

Anesthesia and analgesia (PubMed). Effects of Ketamine and Esketamine on Postoperative Delirium After General Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis.

Open original sourceFull brief

AI-summarized from the linked source. Review the original article before applying to practice.

Key takeaways

Practice implications

Limitations & cautions

Exact source links

More updates for this clinical area

Meta-analysis of 7,981 skull base surgeries finds extending antibiotic prophylaxis beyond 1 day does not reduce postoperative meningitis

Meta-analysis of 20 emergency department studies links intimate partner violence to three-fold higher suicide attempt risk

Meta-analysis of 25 RCTs finds perioperative ketamine and esketamine reduce postoperative delirium risk but increase dizziness