Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - 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. Long-term Survival and Cognitive Function According to Blood Pressure Management During Cardiac Surgery. A Follow-up

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. The PANSAID Randomized Clinical Trial: A pre-planned 1-year follow-up regarding harm

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Maintaining Competence in Airway Management

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. The PANSAID Randomized Clinical Trial: A pre-planned 1-year follow-up regarding harm

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Response

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. The handling oxygenation targets in the intensive care unit (HOT-ICU) trial: Detailed statistical analysis plan

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-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