ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
The usual suspects: a pragmatic framework to identify and address reversible contributors in apparent refractory septic shock.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA subset of patients with septic shock remains hypoperfused or requires escalating vasopressor support despite initial resuscitation. Although this pattern may suggest progression toward refractory septic shock, early high vasopressor requirements or persistent hypoperfusion may still reflect potentially modifiable contributors, including unresolved infection, inadequate fluid administration, metabolic derangements, iatrogenic factors, or cardiac dysfunction. The recent SCCM/ESICM consensus provides expert-derived criteria for refractory septic shock, but the preceding bedside process of reassessing potentially reversible contributors remains less explicitly operationalized. MAIN BODY: This Perspective proposes a pragmatic framework for structured reassessment in apparent refractory septic shock. Refractoriness is approached as a multidimensional construct shaped by severity, time in shock, and prior optimization, in line with current consensus criteria. To operationalize the optimization dimension, we present the "usual suspects": a parallel, hypothesis-driven bedside reassessment of potentially reversible contributors during an apparent-refractory trajectory. Antimicrobial adequacy and source-control status provide the foundational substrate. In parallel, clinicians may reassess fluid responsiveness, tolerance, and efficiency; endocrine, metabolic, and iatrogenic contributors to vasoplegia, such as acidemia and sedation burden; and cardiac mechanisms, including ventricular performance, ventriculo-arterial coupling, and dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. The relative contribution of each domain is expected to vary across patients and over time, requiring reassessment guided by the dominant physiology rather than by a fixed sequence.
conclusionsThis framework is intended as an operational companion to current consensus definitions of refractory septic shock. By organizing the bedside evaluation of potentially reversible contributors, it may help clinicians interpret persistent hypoperfusion and vasopressor escalation during the transition from apparent to established refractoriness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.