OBJECTIVE: To determine whether out-of-hospital administration of hypertonic fluids would improve survival after severe injury with hemorrhagic shock. BACKGROUND:Hypertonic fluids have potential benefit in the resuscitation of severely injured patients because of rapid restoration of tissue perfusion, with a smaller volume, and modulation of the inflammatory response, to reduce subsequent organ injury. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, blinded clinical trial, May 2006 to August 2008, 114 emergency medical services agencies in North America within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. INCLUSION CRITERIA: injured patients, age ≥ 15 years with hypovolemic shock (systolic blood pressure ≤ 70 mmHg or systolic blood pressure 71-90 mm Hg with heart rate ≥ 108 beats per minute). Initial resuscitation fluid, 250 mL of either 7.5% saline per 6% dextran 70 (hypertonic saline/dextran, HSD), 7.5% saline (hypertonic saline, HS), or 0.9% saline (normal saline, NS) administered by out-of-hospital providers. Primary outcome was 28-day survival. On the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, the study was stopped early (23% of proposed sample size) for futility and potential safety concern. RESULTS: : A total of 853 treated patients were enrolled, among whom 62% were with blunt trauma, 38% with penetrating. There was no difference in 28-day survival-HSD: 74.5% (0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 7.8); HS: 73.0% (-1.4; 95% CI, -8.7-6.0); and NS: 74.4%, P = 0.91. There was a higher mortality for the postrandomization subgroup of patients who did not receive blood transfusions in the first 24 hours, who received hypertonic fluids compared to NS [28-day mortality-HSD: 10% (5.2; 95% CI, 0.4-10.1); HS: 12.2% (7.4; 95% CI, 2.5-12.2); and NS: 4.8%, P < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: Among injured patients with hypovolemic shock, initial resuscitation fluid treatment with either HS or HSD compared with NS, did not result in superior 28-day survival. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by the early stopping of the trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov, NCT00316017.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether out-of-hospital administration of hypertonic fluids would improve survival after severe injury with hemorrhagic shock. BACKGROUND:Hypertonic fluids have potential benefit in the resuscitation of severely injured patients because of rapid restoration of tissue perfusion, with a smaller volume, and modulation of the inflammatory response, to reduce subsequent organ injury. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, blinded clinical trial, May 2006 to August 2008, 114 emergency medical services agencies in North America within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. INCLUSION CRITERIA: injured patients, age ≥ 15 years with hypovolemic shock (systolic blood pressure ≤ 70 mm Hg or systolic blood pressure 71-90 mm Hg with heart rate ≥ 108 beats per minute). Initial resuscitation fluid, 250 mL of either 7.5% saline per 6% dextran 70 (hypertonic saline/dextran, HSD), 7.5% saline (hypertonic saline, HS), or 0.9% saline (normal saline, NS) administered by out-of-hospital providers. Primary outcome was 28-day survival. On the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, the study was stopped early (23% of proposed sample size) for futility and potential safety concern. RESULTS: : A total of 853 treated patients were enrolled, among whom 62% were with blunt trauma, 38% with penetrating. There was no difference in 28-day survival-HSD: 74.5% (0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 7.8); HS: 73.0% (-1.4; 95% CI, -8.7-6.0); and NS: 74.4%, P = 0.91. There was a higher mortality for the postrandomization subgroup of patients who did not receive blood transfusions in the first 24 hours, who received hypertonic fluids compared to NS [28-day mortality-HSD: 10% (5.2; 95% CI, 0.4-10.1); HS: 12.2% (7.4; 95% CI, 2.5-12.2); and NS: 4.8%, P < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: Among injured patients with hypovolemic shock, initial resuscitation fluid treatment with either HS or HSD compared with NS, did not result in superior 28-day survival. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by the early stopping of the trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov, NCT00316017.
Authors: D James Cooper; Paul S Myles; Francis T McDermott; Lynette J Murray; John Laidlaw; Gregory Cooper; Ann B Tremayne; Stephen S Bernard; Jennie Ponsford Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wolfgang G Junger; Shawn G Rhind; Sandro B Rizoli; Joseph Cuschieri; Maria Y Shiu; Andrew J Baker; Linglin Li; Pang N Shek; David B Hoyt; Eileen M Bulger Journal: Shock Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Douglas L Andrusiek; Danny Szydlo; Susanne May; Karen J Brasel; Joseph Minei; Rardi van Heest; Russell MacDonald; Martin Schreiber Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: John B Holcomb; Barbara C Tilley; Sarah Baraniuk; Erin E Fox; Charles E Wade; Jeanette M Podbielski; Deborah J del Junco; Karen J Brasel; Eileen M Bulger; Rachael A Callcut; Mitchell Jay Cohen; Bryan A Cotton; Timothy C Fabian; Kenji Inaba; Jeffrey D Kerby; Peter Muskat; Terence O'Keeffe; Sandro Rizoli; Bryce R H Robinson; Thomas M Scalea; Martin A Schreiber; Deborah M Stein; Jordan A Weinberg; Jeannie L Callum; John R Hess; Nena Matijevic; Christopher N Miller; Jean-Francois Pittet; David B Hoyt; Gail D Pearson; Brian Leroux; Gerald van Belle Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hunter B Moore; Ernest E Moore; Michael P Chapman; Kevin McVaney; Gary Bryskiewicz; Robert Blechar; Theresa Chin; Clay Cothren Burlew; Fredric Pieracci; F Bernadette West; Courtney D Fleming; Arsen Ghasabyan; James Chandler; Christopher C Silliman; Anirban Banerjee; Angela Sauaia Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Deborah J Del Junco; Eileen M Bulger; Erin E Fox; John B Holcomb; Karen J Brasel; David B Hoyt; James J Grady; Sarah Duran; Patricia Klotz; Michael A Dubick; Charles E Wade Journal: Injury Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 2.586