Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial—Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. APACHE II score validation in emergency abdominal surgery. A post hoc analysis of the InCare trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Depth to the airway lumen at the level of the cricothyroid membrane measured by ultrasound

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Effects of magnesium, phosphate and zinc supplementation in ICU patients-Protocol for a systematic review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. APACHE II score validation in emergency abdominal surgery. A post hoc analysis of the InCare trial

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Effects of magnesium, phosphate and zinc supplementation in ICU patients-Protocol for a systematic review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock.

METHODS: CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events, serious adverse reactions, days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of hospital at day 90, and mortality, health-related quality of life, and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat population.

DISCUSSION: The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
JournalActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Volume63
Issue number9
Pages (from-to)1262-1271
Number of pages10
ISSN0001-5172
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2019

Bibliographical note

© 2019 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

ID: 58712226