Restrictive Sepsis Resuscitation Shows No Long-Term Functional Deficits

Long-Term Functional Recovery After Sepsis Resuscitation

Sepsis remains a primary driver of hospital mortality and long-term morbidity, characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection [1, 2]. Current clinical standards, such as the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, suggest an initial resuscitation volume of at least 30 mL/kg of intravenous crystalloid for patients presenting with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or shock [3, 4]. However, the clinical utility of this fixed-volume approach is increasingly debated, as practitioners must balance rapid hemodynamic stabilization against the potential for fluid overload and associated organ injury [5, 6, 7]. While most research focuses on short-term survival, the long-term functional and cognitive trajectories of survivors following different fluid strategies have been poorly understood [7, 8]. The SHAMROC trial recently evaluated these outcomes, finding that a restrictive fluid strategy resulted in similar cognitive and physical function at 6 and 12 months compared to a liberal strategy (trimmed mean difference in Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind Score, 0.11; 95% CI, -1.44 to 1.70) [9]. For practicing physicians, these findings suggest that while early fluid volumes are critical for acute stabilization, the specific volume strategy may not independently dictate the long-term recovery of sepsis survivors.

Trial Design and Patient Attrition

The SHAMROC trial (Sepsis-induced Hypotension: Assessing effect of Method of Resuscitation On patient-Centered outcomes) was designed to prospectively evaluate how fluid resuscitation strategies influence long-term recovery. This study served as a long-term follow-up to the National Institutes of Health CLOVERS trial, which compared restrictive and liberal fluid strategies in the acute phase of sepsis. Of the 1563 participants originally enrolled in the CLOVERS trial, 898 individuals (57%) were included in the SHAMROC follow-up cohort to assess the impact of these strategies at 6 and 12 months after randomization. Maintaining longitudinal data in sepsis research is challenging due to high mortality and attrition. After 196 participants were lost to follow-up, the researchers analyzed 702 participants at the 6-month mark, comprising 431 survivors and 271 non-survivors. To address the high mortality rate inherent in sepsis populations, the researchers employed trimmed means at 50% to prevent informative censoring. This statistical technique accounts for data that is missing because a patient has died, ensuring that high mortality rates do not artificially inflate the apparent functional recovery of the surviving cohort. By using this method, the investigators incorporated the outcomes of deceased patients into the overall analysis, providing a more accurate representation of the treatment effect on the entire randomized population.

Cognitive and Executive Function Outcomes

The primary neurocognitive assessment focused on cognitive function at 6 months using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind Score, a validated tool designed to screen for cognitive impairment in patients who may have physical or visual limitations following critical illness. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in cognitive function between the two resuscitation arms. Specifically, the trimmed mean difference in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind Score was 0.11 (95% CI, -1.44 to 1.70) when comparing the restrictive fluid group to the liberal fluid group. This finding suggests that the volume of fluid administered during the initial stabilization of sepsis-induced hypotension does not appear to influence the long-term cognitive trajectory of survivors. In addition to general cognition, the study evaluated executive function, which encompasses the higher-level mental processes required for planning, focus, and multitasking. This domain was measured using the Hayling Sentence Completion Test, a neuropsychological instrument that assesses a patient's ability to initiate a response and inhibit inappropriate or automatic answers. At 6 months, the trimmed mean difference in the Hayling Sentence Completion Test was 0.38 (95% CI, -0.97 to 1.76). These results indicate that executive function outcomes were similar regardless of whether patients received a restrictive or liberal fluid strategy. For clinicians, these data provide reassurance that neither fluid management approach carries a disproportionate risk of long-term neurocognitive morbidity in the year following hospital discharge.

Physical Mobility and Quality of Life

The SHAMROC trial investigators extended their analysis beyond cognitive metrics to evaluate the physical and functional recovery of sepsis survivors. To ensure the validity of these comparisons, the researchers confirmed that baseline characteristics were similar between the restrictive and liberal fluid resuscitation groups, minimizing the risk that pre-existing comorbidities or demographic differences might confound the long-term outcomes. Functional independence was measured using the Activity of Daily Living Score, a tool that assesses a patient's ability to perform essential self-care tasks such as dressing, bathing, and eating. At 6 months, the researchers found no significant difference in disability status between the two treatment arms, reporting a trimmed mean difference in the Activity of Daily Living Score of 0.03 (95% CI, -0.84 to 0.90). Physical function was further scrutinized using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility Score, which evaluates a patient's perceived ability to perform activities ranging from getting out of a chair to walking long distances. The data indicated that mobility outcomes were comparable regardless of the initial fluid strategy. At 6 months, the trimmed mean difference in the PROMIS Mobility Score was 0.72 (95% CI, -2.20 to 3.64). These findings suggest that the volume of fluid administered during the acute phase of sepsis-induced hypotension does not dictate the physical trajectory of recovery over the subsequent half-year. Finally, the study assessed health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-5L, a standardized instrument that measures five dimensions of health including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression. The results showed no meaningful divergence in quality of life between the groups. At 6 months, the trimmed mean difference in the EQ-5D-5L score was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.07 to 0.06). These findings remained consistent at the 12-month follow-up, providing clinicians with evidence that a restrictive fluid strategy does not compromise the long-term functional or physical well-being of sepsis survivors compared to a liberal fluid approach.

Sustained Equivalence Through One Year

The longitudinal data from the SHAMROC trial indicate that the clinical effects of initial fluid resuscitation strategies are not merely transient but remain stable throughout the first year of recovery. When the researchers extended their evaluation to the one-year mark, they found that outcomes did not differ between the restrictive and liberal fluid groups at 12 months. This lack of divergence suggests that the physiological impact of early fluid volume management, whether following a restrictive or liberal protocol, does not create a diverging trajectory for long-term morbidity in survivors of sepsis-induced hypotension. The final analysis confirms that the restrictive fluid strategy resulted in similar cognitive and physical function at 6 and 12 months compared to a liberal fluid strategy. By demonstrating that a more cautious approach to fluid administration does not result in late-emerging functional deficits or physical impairments, these findings provide reassurance to clinicians managing the acute phase of sepsis. Because the long-term recovery profiles remained equivalent across all measured domains, including executive function and mobility, the choice between these two resuscitation strategies can be guided by acute clinical needs rather than concerns over long-term functional prognosis.

References

1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287

2. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021. Critical Care Medicine. 2021. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005337

3. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Medicine. 2007. doi:10.1007/s00134-007-0934-2

4. Rhodes A, Evans L, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Critical Care Medicine. 2017. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002255

5. Nelakuditi M, Bawankule S. Evaluating the impact of early vs. late vasopressor use on outcomes in sepsis patients: A systematic review. Multidisciplinary Reviews. 2025. doi:10.31893/multirev.2025249

6. Lazzarin T, Ballarin RS, Pereira F, Azevedo P, Tanni S, Minicucci M. Role of sulfonylurea administration in sepsis and septic shock patients: A systematic review. Clinics. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.clinsp.2023.100197

7. Lafon T, Gouge AL, Brit S, Giraudeau B, Vignon P. Impact of early haemodynamic assessment by echocardiography on organ dysfunction and outcome of patients admitted to the emergency department with sepsis or septic shock: protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (GENESIS). BMJ Open. 2025. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098304

8. Maiwall R, Kumar A, Pasupuleti S, et al. A randomized-controlled trial comparing 20% albumin to plasmalyte in patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension [ALPS trial].. Journal of Hepatology. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2022.03.043

9. Jorda A, Gelbenegger G, Shapiro NI, et al. Effects of an early restrictive versus liberal fluid strategy on long-term patient-centered outcomes in sepsis-induced hypotension (SHAMROC): an open-label, randomized controlled trial.. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2026. doi:10.1093/ajrccm/aamag154