Restrictive fluids versus standard care in adults with sepsis in the emergency department (REFACED): A multicenter, randomized feasibility trial.
Journal
Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
ISSN: 1553-2712
Titre abrégé: Acad Emerg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9418450
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
revised:
22
05
2022
received:
04
04
2022
accepted:
27
05
2022
pubmed:
3
6
2022
medline:
7
10
2022
entrez:
2
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fluid treatment in sepsis is a challenge and clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) volumes. We aimed to determine whether a 24-h protocol restricting IV fluid was feasible in adult patients with sepsis without shock presenting to the emergency department (ED). The REFACED Sepsis trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label, feasibility trial, assigning sepsis patients without shock to 24 h of restrictive, crystal IV fluid administration or standard care. In the IV fluid restriction group fluid boluses were only permitted if predefined criteria for hypoperfusion occurred. Standard care was at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome was total IV crystalloid fluid volumes at 24 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included total fluid volumes, feasibility measures, and patient-centered outcomes. We included 123 patients (restrictive 61 patients and standard care 62 patients) in the primary analysis. A total of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-37%) of eligible patients meeting all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were included. At 24 h, the mean (±SD) IV crystalloid fluid volumes were 562 (±1076) ml versus 1370 (±1438) ml in the restrictive versus standard care group (mean difference -801 ml, 95% CI -1257 to -345 ml, p = 0.001). Protocol violations occurred in 21 (34%) patients in the fluid-restrictive group. There were no differences between groups in adverse events, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, acute kidney failure, length of stay, or mortality. A protocol restricting IV crystalloid fluids in ED patients with sepsis reduced 24-h fluid volumes compared to standard care. A future trial powered toward patient-centered outcomes appears feasible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fluid treatment in sepsis is a challenge and clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) volumes. We aimed to determine whether a 24-h protocol restricting IV fluid was feasible in adult patients with sepsis without shock presenting to the emergency department (ED).
METHODS
The REFACED Sepsis trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label, feasibility trial, assigning sepsis patients without shock to 24 h of restrictive, crystal IV fluid administration or standard care. In the IV fluid restriction group fluid boluses were only permitted if predefined criteria for hypoperfusion occurred. Standard care was at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome was total IV crystalloid fluid volumes at 24 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included total fluid volumes, feasibility measures, and patient-centered outcomes.
RESULTS
We included 123 patients (restrictive 61 patients and standard care 62 patients) in the primary analysis. A total of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-37%) of eligible patients meeting all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were included. At 24 h, the mean (±SD) IV crystalloid fluid volumes were 562 (±1076) ml versus 1370 (±1438) ml in the restrictive versus standard care group (mean difference -801 ml, 95% CI -1257 to -345 ml, p = 0.001). Protocol violations occurred in 21 (34%) patients in the fluid-restrictive group. There were no differences between groups in adverse events, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, acute kidney failure, length of stay, or mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
A protocol restricting IV crystalloid fluids in ED patients with sepsis reduced 24-h fluid volumes compared to standard care. A future trial powered toward patient-centered outcomes appears feasible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35652491
doi: 10.1111/acem.14546
pmc: PMC9804491
doi:
Substances chimiques
Crystalloid Solutions
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05076435']
EudraCT
['2021-000224-35']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1172-1184Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Références
Anesth Analg. 2020 Feb;130(2):542-546
pubmed: 31725019
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Nov;42(11):1695-1705
pubmed: 27686349
Emerg Med J. 2018 Aug;35(8):511-515
pubmed: 29807929
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct 15;198(8):1043-1054
pubmed: 29882682
Crit Care Med. 2014 Nov;42(11):2315-24
pubmed: 25072757
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Sep;43(9):1294-1305
pubmed: 28500455
Acad Emerg Med. 2022 Oct;29(10):1172-1184
pubmed: 35652491
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Mar 29;8(1):75
pubmed: 35351214
Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):486-552
pubmed: 28098591
J Crit Care. 2019 Jun;51:94-98
pubmed: 30784983
Lancet. 2017 Apr 1;389(10076):1312-1322
pubmed: 28233565
Chest. 2020 Oct;158(4):1431-1445
pubmed: 32353418
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Oct;38(10):2147-2150
pubmed: 33046295
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Dec;44(12):2070-2078
pubmed: 30382308
Crit Care Med. 2010 May;38(5):1276-83
pubmed: 20308885
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10
pubmed: 26903338
PLoS One. 2016 May 19;11(5):e0155767
pubmed: 27196104
Crit Care Med. 2020 Dec;48(12):1862-1870
pubmed: 33009098
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014 Nov-Dec;46(5):361-80
pubmed: 25432556
Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):13-21
pubmed: 25251760
Cureus. 2020 Apr 27;12(4):e7863
pubmed: 32483513
JAMA. 2017 Oct 3;318(13):1233-1240
pubmed: 28973227
Intensive Care Med. 2011 May;37(5):801-7
pubmed: 21373821
Crit Care Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):259-65
pubmed: 20975548
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):625-629
pubmed: 29198517
Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Apr;37(4):664-671
pubmed: 30001815
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;72(4):457-466
pubmed: 29753517
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376(23):2235-2244
pubmed: 28528569
Open Med (Wars). 2017 Dec 22;12:409-416
pubmed: 29318186
Nephron. 2019;143(3):170-173
pubmed: 31394531
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jun;44(6):925-928
pubmed: 29675566
Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Nov 2;10(1):150
pubmed: 33140173
Crit Care Med. 2019 Jul;47(7):951-959
pubmed: 30985449
Crit Care Med. 2021 Nov 1;49(11):e1063-e1143
pubmed: 34605781
JAMA. 2019 Feb 19;321(7):654-664
pubmed: 30772908
Ann Intensive Care. 2018 May 22;8(1):66
pubmed: 29789983
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1549-60
pubmed: 25952825
Shock. 2012 Jul;38(1):4-10
pubmed: 22552014
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Dec;40(12):1897-905
pubmed: 25293535
Lancet. 2020 Jan 18;395(10219):200-211
pubmed: 31954465
J Intensive Care. 2017 Jun 6;5:34
pubmed: 28603624
Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun;48(6):e440-e469
pubmed: 32224769
Intensive Care Med. 2017 May;43(5):625-632
pubmed: 28130687
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 Sep;65(8):1122-1142
pubmed: 33964019
Shock. 2015 Jan;43(1):68-73
pubmed: 25247784
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019 Oct;63(9):1262-1271
pubmed: 31276193
Emerg Med Australas. 2020 Aug;32(4):586-598
pubmed: 32043315
Chest. 2020 Jun;157(6):1478-1496
pubmed: 31982391