Matthew W Semler1, David R Janz2, Jonathan D Casey1, Wesley H Self3, Todd W Rice1. 1. Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. Section of Pulmonary/Critical Care & Allergy/Immunology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The feasibility and clinical outcomes of conservative fluid management after sepsis resuscitation remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a conservative fluid management protocol on fluid balance and intensive care unit (ICU)-free days among patients with sepsis. METHODS: In a single-center phase II/III randomized trial, we enrolled adults with suspected infection, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and either shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg or vasopressors) or respiratory insufficiency (mechanical ventilation or oxygen saturation <97% and fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care or a conservative fluid management protocol. The protocol restricted intravenous fluid administration during shock to treatment of oliguria or increasing vasopressor requirement. In the absence of shock, loop diuretic infusion targeted equal fluid input and output each study day. The primary outcomes were mean daily fluid balance (phase II) and ICU-free days (phase III). RESULTS: At the completion of phase II (n = 30), the difference in mean daily fluid balance between groups (-398 mL) was less than the prespecified threshold (-500 mL) and the trial was stopped. Patients in the conservative fluid management (n = 15) and usual care (n = 15) groups experienced similar cumulative fluid input (8450 mL vs 7049 mL; P = .90) of which only 14% was intravenous crystalloid or colloid. Loop diuretic infusion occurred more frequently in the conservative fluid management group (40% vs 0%; P = .02), and cumulative fluid output was 10 645 mL in the conservative fluid management group compared to 6286 mL in the usual care group (P = .39). Hemodynamic, respiratory, and renal function did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase II trial, a conservative fluid management protocol did not decrease mean daily fluid balance by more than 500 mL among patients with sepsis. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02159079.
RATIONALE: The feasibility and clinical outcomes of conservative fluid management after sepsis resuscitation remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a conservative fluid management protocol on fluid balance and intensive care unit (ICU)-free days among patients with sepsis. METHODS: In a single-center phase II/III randomized trial, we enrolled adults with suspected infection, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and either shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg or vasopressors) or respiratory insufficiency (mechanical ventilation or oxygen saturation <97% and fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care or a conservative fluid management protocol. The protocol restricted intravenous fluid administration during shock to treatment of oliguria or increasing vasopressor requirement. In the absence of shock, loop diuretic infusion targeted equal fluid input and output each study day. The primary outcomes were mean daily fluid balance (phase II) and ICU-free days (phase III). RESULTS: At the completion of phase II (n = 30), the difference in mean daily fluid balance between groups (-398 mL) was less than the prespecified threshold (-500 mL) and the trial was stopped. Patients in the conservative fluid management (n = 15) and usual care (n = 15) groups experienced similar cumulative fluid input (8450 mL vs 7049 mL; P = .90) of which only 14% was intravenous crystalloid or colloid. Loop diuretic infusion occurred more frequently in the conservative fluid management group (40% vs 0%; P = .02), and cumulative fluid output was 10 645 mL in the conservative fluid management group compared to 6286 mL in the usual care group (P = .39). Hemodynamic, respiratory, and renal function did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase II trial, a conservative fluid management protocol did not decrease mean daily fluid balance by more than 500 mL among patients with sepsis. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02159079.
Authors: E Rivers; B Nguyen; S Havstad; J Ressler; A Muzzin; B Knoblich; E Peterson; M Tomlanovich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kathryn Maitland; Sarah Kiguli; Robert O Opoka; Charles Engoru; Peter Olupot-Olupot; Samuel O Akech; Richard Nyeko; George Mtove; Hugh Reyburn; Trudie Lang; Bernadette Brent; Jennifer A Evans; James K Tibenderana; Jane Crawley; Elizabeth C Russell; Michael Levin; Abdel G Babiker; Diana M Gibb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Colin K Grissom; Eliotte L Hirshberg; Justin B Dickerson; Samuel M Brown; Michael J Lanspa; Kathleen D Liu; David Schoenfeld; Mark Tidswell; R Duncan Hite; Peter Rock; Russell R Miller; Alan H Morris Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes; Djillali Annane; Herwig Gerlach; Steven M Opal; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Ivor S Douglas; Roman Jaeschke; Tiffany M Osborn; Mark E Nunnally; Sean R Townsend; Konrad Reinhart; Ruth M Kleinpell; Derek C Angus; Clifford S Deutschman; Flavia R Machado; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Steven A Webb; Richard J Beale; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Claire V Murphy; Garrett E Schramm; Joshua A Doherty; Richard M Reichley; Ognjen Gajic; Bekele Afessa; Scott T Micek; Marin H Kollef Journal: Chest Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Peter B Hjortrup; Nicolai Haase; Helle Bundgaard; Simon L Thomsen; Robert Winding; Ville Pettilä; Anne Aaen; David Lodahl; Rasmus E Berthelsen; Henrik Christensen; Martin B Madsen; Per Winkel; Jørn Wetterslev; Anders Perner Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ben Andrews; Levy Muchemwa; Paul Kelly; Shabir Lakhi; Douglas C Heimburger; Gordon R Bernard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ben Andrews; Matthew W Semler; Levy Muchemwa; Paul Kelly; Shabir Lakhi; Douglas C Heimburger; Chileshe Mabula; Mwango Bwalya; Gordon R Bernard Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Laura Evans; Andrew Rhodes; Waleed Alhazzani; Massimo Antonelli; Craig M Coopersmith; Craig French; Flávia R Machado; Lauralyn Mcintyre; Marlies Ostermann; Hallie C Prescott; Christa Schorr; Steven Simpson; W Joost Wiersinga; Fayez Alshamsi; Derek C Angus; Yaseen Arabi; Luciano Azevedo; Richard Beale; Gregory Beilman; Emilie Belley-Cote; Lisa Burry; Maurizio Cecconi; John Centofanti; Angel Coz Yataco; Jan De Waele; R Phillip Dellinger; Kent Doi; Bin Du; Elisa Estenssoro; Ricard Ferrer; Charles Gomersall; Carol Hodgson; Morten Hylander Møller; Theodore Iwashyna; Shevin Jacob; Ruth Kleinpell; Michael Klompas; Younsuck Koh; Anand Kumar; Arthur Kwizera; Suzana Lobo; Henry Masur; Steven McGloughlin; Sangeeta Mehta; Yatin Mehta; Mervyn Mer; Mark Nunnally; Simon Oczkowski; Tiffany Osborn; Elizabeth Papathanassoglou; Anders Perner; Michael Puskarich; Jason Roberts; William Schweickert; Maureen Seckel; Jonathan Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Tobias Welte; Janice Zimmerman; Mitchell Levy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-10-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Suvi T Vaara; Marlies Ostermann; Laurent Bitker; Antoine Schneider; Elettra Poli; Eric Hoste; Jan Fierens; Michael Joannidis; Alexander Zarbock; Frank van Haren; John Prowle; Tuomas Selander; Minna Bäcklund; Ville Pettilä; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: V Eric Kerchberger; Ryan M Brown; Matthew W Semler; Zhiguo Zhao; Tatsuki Koyama; David R Janz; Julie A Bastarache; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-07-06
Authors: Arnaldo Dubin; Cecilia Loudet; Vanina S Kanoore Edul; Javier Osatnik; Fernando Ríos; Daniela Vásquez; Mario Pozo; Bernardo Lattanzio; Fernando Pálizas; Francisco Klein; Damián Piezny; Paolo N Rubatto Birri; Graciela Tuhay; Analía García; Analía Santamaría; Graciela Zakalik; Cecilia González; Elisa Estenssoro Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 6.925