Franco Diaz
Jocelyn Riderelli1
Roberto Jabornisky- 1Unidad de Paciente Crítico Pediátrico, Hospital El Carmen de Maipú, Santiago, Chile
- 2Unidad de Investigación y Epidemiología Clínica (UIEC), Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile
- 3Red Colaborativa Pediatrica de Latinoamérica, LARed Network, Santiago, Chile
- 4Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos, Hospital Regional Olga Stucky de Rizzi, Reconquista, Argentina
Fluid administration has been a cornerstone of therapy for acutely ill children for decades. The association between inadequate hydration, diarrhea, and dehydration with disease severity—and ultimately, mortality— in children has been acknowledged since antiquity. Despite significant advancements in healthcare that have reduced infant mortality rates, like oral rehydration therapy promoted by the World Health Organization, approximately 500,000 children continue to die each year from diarrhea and dehydration, primarily in low-resource settings (1).
Since the 1990s, research has highlighted key differences in how children and adults respond to severe infections, particularly in hemodynamics and organ failure patterns. These differences have led to the belief that hypovolemia is the main hemodynamic issue in children with severe infections. Unsurprisingly, as fast as intravenous fluids were pushed, we rushed to conclude that promptly correcting hypovolemia could prevent disease progression and improve outcomes. This approach received endorsement from numerous academic societies and was precipitously integrated into sepsis and septic shock treatment protocols. It became widely adopted globally as a “one-size-fits-all” recommendation, particularly due to the easy availability of fluids such as normal saline and Ringer's lactate.
However, early studies advocating for “aggressive fluid resuscitation” were limited in scope. A seminal study published in JAMA in 1991, which analyzed 34 children, indicated improved survival rates with increased fluid administration (greater than 40 ml/kg) (2). Yet, this study reported that 82% of patients required invasive mechanical ventilation within six hours, and five children developed pulmonary edema. In high-income countries, the detrimental effects of “aggressive fluid resuscitation” could be easily monitored (pulse oximetry, blood gas analysis, chest x-ray) and promptly treated with oxygen, as well as non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation. It was reasonable to recommend a potentially lifesaving therapy despite the possibility of adverse effects, as the benefits of preventing death outweighed the risks of such outcomes if treated accordingly (3).
Over time, accumulating evidence has highlighted the harmful effects of rapid, large-volume fluid administration, particularly in resource-limited environments where managing complications is challenging (4, 5). It has taken over two decades for the medical community to cautiously acknowledge these adverse effects, with recommendations to reduce initial fluid boluses; however, these changes have not yet significantly influenced clinical practice (5–10).
Young children are particularly susceptible to dehydration due to their physiological characteristics, including a higher body water percentage, increased metabolic rate, and renal immaturity. Clinical confusion often arises between dehydration and hypovolemia, leading to sub-optimal therapy. Dehydration refers to a deficit in total body water and is usually associated with hypertonicity, whereas hypovolemia refers to a reduction in circulating blood volume, about 10% of total body water. Pediatric patients can experience dehydration without significant hypovolemia, as fluid may redistribute to maintain blood volume. It is important to recall that between 60% and 70% of the intravascular water is contained in the highly compliant venous central compartment, also known as non-stressed volemia according to Guyton's model of the circulatory system. Rapid administration of intravenous fluids in large quantities will transiently increase hydrostatic pressure in the venous compartment but ultimately will end up in the non-stressed compartment rather than a sustained hemodynamic improvement, particularly when the venous tone remains unchanged (11, 12).
Criticism of fluid resuscitation therapy has increased as evidence of its potential harms grows, prompting a call to rationalize individualized therapy (13, 14). Nonetheless, rehydration and the correction of hypovolemia remain crucial interventions for children, saving countless lives. Unfortunately, in a classic egocentric bias, pediatric critical care guidelines have not adequately incorporated personalized medicine principles, particularly regarding pathophysiology and the diverse contexts in which pediatric patients receive care. Notably, 86% of the authors of the guidelines are from high-income countries (3, 5).
Healthcare professionals must recognize the cognitive biases that may have led to overestimating the benefits of fluid resuscitation, especially in sepsis protocols. Thousands of children receive unnecessary fluid boluses, which can contribute to increased morbidity and mortality. Recent initiatives, such as the Phoenix criteria for sepsis, aim to refine patient selection for timely interventions, but further research is required to validate this approach compared to traditional methods (15).
Given these considerations, we should have emphasized the potential adverse effects of rapid fluid administration. Like most treatments for critically ill children, healthcare professionals must be alert to common complications and know how to manage them. Second, it is essential to highlight that not all hemodynamically unstable children suffer from severe hypovolemia requiring the rapid infusion of nearly one blood volume (60 ml/kg) within minutes (16, 17). Third, a reduction in stressed circulating volume contributes to poor organ perfusion, making the early initiation of vasoactive drugs a key intervention. Notably, starting epinephrine or norepinephrine via peripheral venous access is safe (18, 19). Fourth, the growing population of technology-dependent children, with complex-chronic-conditions and with central venous catheters, frequently present with low systemic vascular resistance often present with low systemic vascular resistance, a distinctive hemodynamic profile (20). Recent studies show this population may account for up to 50% of PICU admissions due to sepsis, even in developing countries. Fifth, the risk of adverse effects from rapid intravenous fluid boluses increases when administered quickly, often leading to a higher incidence of respiratory failure within the first hour, requiring mechanical ventilation (21). Sixth, the hemodynamic benefits of rapid fluid infusion are transient, peaking within the first 5 min, with most cardiovascular effects diminishing after 10 min and disappearing within an hour. Increased hydrostatic pressure can lead to interstitial fluid accumulation and exacerbate capillary leak through glycocalyx damage and endothelial injury. Additionally, fluid boluses are often given after the first 6 h of hospital admission and during the second or third day in the PICU, driven by outdated views that dismiss edema as a mere cosmetic issue or assume “no congestion, no harm”. (22, 23) These practices contribute to electrolyte imbalances, fluid overload, and ICU-acquired morbidity (24).
The term “oxymoron” refers to a phrase that combines contradictory elements, such as “awfully good”. Resuscitation denotes the act of restoring life to an individual and, in critical care, is correcting physiological disorders in acutely ill patients. Given the current evidence, the term “fluid resuscitation” appears contradictory. Looking again at the definition, isn't it curious that we must “de-resuscitate” a patient? The concept of “de-resuscitation”, where excess fluid is later removed, further underscores the paradox inherent in current fluid management practices.
Given these insights, we must question: Are we genuinely resuscitating patients with fluids? From our perspective, the phrase’ fluid resuscitation' itself is an oxymoron. We must redefine fluid management terminologies—shifting from “resuscitation” to more precise terms, clarifying its purpose: rehydration, replacement of losses, maintenance, treatments, nutrition, and monitoring (25).
In conclusion, fluid therapy is vital for caring for critically ill children, but the rationale for employing fluid boluses as a blind blanket treatment for hemodynamic instability requires thorough reassessment. A comprehensive understanding of fluids as a drug in critical care, including a dose, duration, and de-escalation (4D's defined by Malbrain et al.), is essential, with specific indications and duration (25). A more rational, individualized approach may facilitate the adoption of alternative strategies aimed at minimizing excessive fluid administration and preventing fluid overload (26). As underscored by Fernandez-Sarmiento et al. (13), it is imperative that clinicians systematically assess and clearly document, at least on a daily basis, the current phase of critical illness in each pediatric patient to ensure fluid management is appropriately tailored. Given the mounting evidence highlighting the potential harms and only transient benefits of fluid resuscitation, a precise, individualized, and context-driven approach to fluid therapy is no longer optional—it is essential. Such a strategy is crucial for optimizing outcomes and minimizing iatrogenic complications in critically ill children globally.
Author contributions
FD: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. JR: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. RJ: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME). Levels & Trends in Child Mortality: Report 2023, Estimates Developed by the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (2024).
2. Carcillo JA, Davis AL, Zaritsky A. Role of early fluid resuscitation in pediatric septic shock. JAMA. (1991) 266:1242–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.1991.03470090076035
3. Weiss SL, Peters MJ, Alhazzani W, Agus MSD, Flori HR, Inwald DP, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children. Intens Care Med. (2020) 46:10–67. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05878-6
4. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, Engoru C, Olupot-Olupot P, Akech SO, et al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. (2011) 364:2483–95. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1101549
5. Wooldridge G, O’Brien N, Muttalib F, Abbas Q, Appiah JA, Baker T, et al. Challenges of implementing the paediatric surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines 2020 in resource-limited settings: a real-world view beyond the academia. Andes Pediatr. (2021) 92:954–62. doi: 10.32641/andespediatr.v92i6.4030
6. Braun CG, Askenazi DJ, Neyra JA, Prabhakaran P, Rahman AKMF, Webb TN, et al. Fluid deresuscitation in critically ill children: comparing perspectives of intensivists and nephrologists. Front Pediatr. (2024) 12:1484893. doi: 10.3389/fped.2024.1484893
7. Killien EY. Predicting fluid responsiveness in critically ill children: so many tools and so few answers. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2024) 25:77–80. doi: 10.1097/pcc.0000000000003360
8. Kiguli S, Maitland K, George E. Avoid re-interpreting fluid bolus recommendations for low-income settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. (2023) 7:e18. doi: 10.1016/s2352-4642(23)00257-2
9. Brossier DW, Tume LN, Briant AR, Jotterand Chaparro C, Moullet C, Rooze S, et al. ESPNIC Clinical practice guidelines: intravenous maintenance fluid therapy in acute and critically ill children- a systematic review and meta-analysis [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med (2023) 49(1):128–129. doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06933-5], [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. (2023) 49(9):1151–1153. doi: 10.1007/s00134-023-07119-3]. Intensive Care Med. (2022) 48(12):1691–708. doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06882-z
10. Arrahmani I, Ingelse SA, van Woensel JBM, Bem RA, Lemson J. Current practice of fluid maintenance and replacement therapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill children: a European survey. Front Pediatr. (2022) 10:828637. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.828637
11. Rodríguez MJ, Donoso A. Algunas consideraciones fisiopatológicas sobre el uso de fluidos en el paciente crítico. En busca de perfusión sin congestión. Andes Pediatr. (2022) 93:924–6. doi: 10.32641/andespediatr.v93i6.4573
12. Adda I, Lai C, Teboul J-L, Guerin L, Gavelli F, Monnet X. Norepinephrine potentiates the efficacy of volume expansion on mean systemic pressure in septic shock. Crit Care. (2021) 25:302. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03711-5
13. Fernández-Sarmiento J, Ranjit S, Sanchez-Pinto LN, Nadkarni VM, Jabornisky R, Kissoon N. The resuscitation, equilibrium and De-escalation (RED) strategy: a phased, personalized hemodynamic support in children with sepsis. Front Pediatr. (2025) 13:1530984. doi: 10.62675/2965-2774.20240111-en
14. Díaz F. ¿Por qué estudiar sobrecarga de fluidos en niños graves? Revocación médica, heterogeneidad y resistencia al cambio. Andes Pediatr. (2022) 93:455–7. doi: 10.32641/andespediatr.v93i4.4451
15. Sanchez-Pinto LN, Bennett TD, DeWitt PE, Russell S, Rebull MN, Martin B, et al. Development and validation of the Phoenix criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock. JAMA. (2024) 331:675–86. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.0196
16. San Geroteo J, Levy M, Bailhache M, De Jorna C, Privat E, Gasmi O, et al. Assessment of adherence to the 2020 surviving sepsis campaign guidelines for fluid resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock in paediatric emergency departments: a prospective multicentre study. Arch Dis Child. (2024) 109:636–41. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2023-325837
17. Long E, Babl FE, Oakley E, Sheridan B, Duke T, Pediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT). Cardiac Index changes with fluid bolus therapy in children with sepsis—an observational study. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2018) 19:513–8. doi: 10.1097/pcc.0000000000001534
18. Peshimam N, Bruce-Hickman K, Crawford K, Upadhyay G, Randle E, Ramnarayan P, et al. Peripheral and central/intraosseous vasoactive infusions during and after pediatric critical care transport: retrospective cohort study of extravasation injury. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2022) 23:626–34. doi: 10.1097/pcc.0000000000002972
19. Abrar S, Abbas Q, Inam M, Khan I, Khalid F, Raza S. Safety of vasopressor medications through peripheral line in pediatric patients in PICU in a resource-limited setting. Crit Care Res Pr. (2022) 2022:6160563. doi: 10.1155/2022/6160563
20. Deep A, Goonasekera CDA, Wang Y, Brierley J. Evolution of haemodynamics and outcome of fluid-refractory septic shock in children. Intens Care Med. (2013) 39:1602–9. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-3003-z
21. Sankar J, Ismail J, Sankar MJ, Suresh CP, Meena RS. Fluid bolus over 15–20 versus 5–10 minutes each in the first hour of resuscitation in children with septic shock. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2017) 18:e435–45. doi: 10.1097/pcc.0000000000001269
22. Al-Lawati ZH, Sur M, Kennedy CE, Arikan AA. Profile of fluid exposure and recognition of fluid overload in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2020) 21:760–6. doi: 10.1097/pcc.0000000000002337
23. Bulfon A, Alomani H, Anton N, Comrie B, Rochwerg B, Stef S, et al. Intravenous fluid prescription practices in critically ill children: a shift in focus from natremia to chloremia? J Pediatr Intensive Care. (2019) 08:218–25. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1692413
24. Lintz VC, Vieira RA, Carioca FL, Ferraz IS, Silva HM, Ventura AMC, et al. Fluid accumulation in critically ill children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine. (2024) 74:102714. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102714
25. Malbrain MLNG, Van Regenmortel N, Saugel B, De Tavernier B, Van Gaal PJ, Joannes-Boyau O, et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four d’s and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. (2018) 8:66. doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0402-x
Keywords: sepsis, fluid over load, septic shock, pediatric, fluids
Citation: Diaz F, Riderelli J and Jabornisky R (2025) Pediatric fluid resuscitation: an oxymoron?. Front. Pediatr. 13:1594336. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1594336
Received: 15 March 2025; Accepted: 27 May 2025;
Published: 10 June 2025.
Edited by:
Avihu Z. Gazit, University of Pittsburgh, United StatesReviewed by:
Matthew Goldsmith, Washington University in St. Louis, United StatesCopyright: © 2025 Diaz, Riderelli and Jabornisky. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Franco Diaz, ZnJhbmNvZGlhenJAZ21haWwuY29t