Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock after initial management: the CLASSIC randomised, parallel-group, multicentre feasibility trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Heterogeneity of treatment effect of prophylactic pantoprazole in adult ICU patients: a post hoc analysis of the SUP-ICU trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Noninvasive respiratory support in the hypoxaemic peri-operative/periprocedural patient: a joint ESA/ESICM guideline

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in immunocompromised patients

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Oxygen toxicity in major emergency surgery-anything new?

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

PURPOSE: We assessed the effects of a protocol restricting resuscitation fluid vs. a standard care protocol after initial resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock.

METHODS: We randomised 151 adult patients with septic shock who had received initial fluid resuscitation in nine Scandinavian ICUs. In the fluid restriction group fluid boluses were permitted only if signs of severe hypoperfusion occurred, while in the standard care group fluid boluses were permitted as long as circulation continued to improve.

RESULTS: The co-primary outcome measures, resuscitation fluid volumes at day 5 and during ICU stay, were lower in the fluid restriction group than in the standard care group [mean differences -1.2 L (95 % confidence interval -2.0 to -0.4); p < 0.001 and -1.4 L (-2.4 to -0.4) respectively; p < 0.001]. Neither total fluid inputs and balances nor serious adverse reactions differed statistically significantly between the groups. Major protocol violations occurred in 27/75 patients in the fluid restriction group. Ischaemic events occurred in 3/75 in the fluid restriction group vs. 9/76 in the standard care group (odds ratio 0.32; 0.08-1.27; p = 0.11), worsening of acute kidney injury in 27/73 vs. 39/72 (0.46; 0.23-0.92; p = 0.03), and death by 90 days in 25/75 vs. 31/76 (0.71; 0.36-1.40; p = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS: A protocol restricting resuscitation fluid successfully reduced volumes of resuscitation fluid compared with a standard care protocol in adult ICU patients with septic shock. The patient-centred outcomes all pointed towards benefit with fluid restriction, but our trial was not powered to show differences in these exploratory outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02079402.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftIntensive Care Medicine
Vol/bind42
Sider (fra-til)1695-1705
ISSN0342-4642
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 30 sep. 2016

ID: 49027554