Cargando…
REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1)
INTRODUCTION: Intravenous fluid therapy is the most common intervention in critically ill children. There is an increasing body of evidence questioning the safety of high-volume intravenous fluid administration in these patients. To date, the optimal fluid management strategy remains unclear. We aim...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10689381/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38030251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076460 |
_version_ | 1785152355151380480 |
---|---|
author | Raman, Sainath Rahiman, Sarfaraz Kennedy, Melanie Mattke, Adrian Venugopal, Prem McBride, Craig Tu, Quyen Zapf, Florian Kuhlwein, Eva Woodgate, Jemma Singh, Puneet Schlapbach, Luregn J Gibbons, Kristen S |
author_facet | Raman, Sainath Rahiman, Sarfaraz Kennedy, Melanie Mattke, Adrian Venugopal, Prem McBride, Craig Tu, Quyen Zapf, Florian Kuhlwein, Eva Woodgate, Jemma Singh, Puneet Schlapbach, Luregn J Gibbons, Kristen S |
author_sort | Raman, Sainath |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Intravenous fluid therapy is the most common intervention in critically ill children. There is an increasing body of evidence questioning the safety of high-volume intravenous fluid administration in these patients. To date, the optimal fluid management strategy remains unclear. We aimed to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing a restrictive with a standard (liberal) fluid management strategy in critically ill children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multicentre, binational pilot, randomised, controlled, open-label, pragmatic trial. Patients <18 years admitted to paediatric intensive care unit and mechanically ventilated at the time of screening are eligible. Patients with tumour lysis syndrome, diabetic ketoacidosis or postorgan transplant are excluded. Interventions: 1:1 random assignment of 154 individual patients into two groups—restrictive versus standard, liberal, fluid strategy—stratified by primary diagnosis (cardiac/non-cardiac). The intervention consists of a restrictive fluid bundle, including lower maintenance fluid allowance, limiting fluid boluses, reducing volumes of drug delivery and initiating diuretics or peritoneal dialysis earlier. The intervention is applied for 48 hours postrandomisation or until discharge (whichever is earlier). Endpoints: The number of patients recruited per month and proportion of recruited to eligible patients are feasibility endpoints. New-onset acute kidney injury and the incidence of clinically relevant central venous thrombosis are safety endpoints. Fluid balance at 48 hours after randomisation is the efficacy endpoint. Survival free of paediatric intensive care censored at 28 days is the clinical endpoint. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was gained from the Children’s Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/21/QCHQ/77514, date: 1 September 2021), and University of Zurich (2021-02447, date: 17 March 2023). The trial is registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001311842). Open-access publication in high impact peer-reviewed journals will be sought. Modern information dissemination strategies will also be used including social media to disseminate the outcomes of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001311842. PROTOCOL VERSION/DATE: V5/23 May 2023. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10689381 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106893812023-12-02 REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1) Raman, Sainath Rahiman, Sarfaraz Kennedy, Melanie Mattke, Adrian Venugopal, Prem McBride, Craig Tu, Quyen Zapf, Florian Kuhlwein, Eva Woodgate, Jemma Singh, Puneet Schlapbach, Luregn J Gibbons, Kristen S BMJ Open Intensive Care INTRODUCTION: Intravenous fluid therapy is the most common intervention in critically ill children. There is an increasing body of evidence questioning the safety of high-volume intravenous fluid administration in these patients. To date, the optimal fluid management strategy remains unclear. We aimed to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing a restrictive with a standard (liberal) fluid management strategy in critically ill children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multicentre, binational pilot, randomised, controlled, open-label, pragmatic trial. Patients <18 years admitted to paediatric intensive care unit and mechanically ventilated at the time of screening are eligible. Patients with tumour lysis syndrome, diabetic ketoacidosis or postorgan transplant are excluded. Interventions: 1:1 random assignment of 154 individual patients into two groups—restrictive versus standard, liberal, fluid strategy—stratified by primary diagnosis (cardiac/non-cardiac). The intervention consists of a restrictive fluid bundle, including lower maintenance fluid allowance, limiting fluid boluses, reducing volumes of drug delivery and initiating diuretics or peritoneal dialysis earlier. The intervention is applied for 48 hours postrandomisation or until discharge (whichever is earlier). Endpoints: The number of patients recruited per month and proportion of recruited to eligible patients are feasibility endpoints. New-onset acute kidney injury and the incidence of clinically relevant central venous thrombosis are safety endpoints. Fluid balance at 48 hours after randomisation is the efficacy endpoint. Survival free of paediatric intensive care censored at 28 days is the clinical endpoint. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was gained from the Children’s Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/21/QCHQ/77514, date: 1 September 2021), and University of Zurich (2021-02447, date: 17 March 2023). The trial is registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001311842). Open-access publication in high impact peer-reviewed journals will be sought. Modern information dissemination strategies will also be used including social media to disseminate the outcomes of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001311842. PROTOCOL VERSION/DATE: V5/23 May 2023. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10689381/ /pubmed/38030251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076460 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Intensive Care Raman, Sainath Rahiman, Sarfaraz Kennedy, Melanie Mattke, Adrian Venugopal, Prem McBride, Craig Tu, Quyen Zapf, Florian Kuhlwein, Eva Woodgate, Jemma Singh, Puneet Schlapbach, Luregn J Gibbons, Kristen S REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1) |
title | REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1) |
title_full | REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1) |
title_fullStr | REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1) |
title_full_unstemmed | REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1) |
title_short | REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1) |
title_sort | restrictive versus standard fluid management in mechanically ventilated children admitted to picu: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (reduce-1) |
topic | Intensive Care |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10689381/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38030251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076460 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ramansainath restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT rahimansarfaraz restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT kennedymelanie restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT mattkeadrian restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT venugopalprem restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT mcbridecraig restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT tuquyen restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT zapfflorian restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT kuhlweineva restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT woodgatejemma restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT singhpuneet restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT schlapbachluregnj restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 AT gibbonskristens restrictiveversusstandardfluidmanagementinmechanicallyventilatedchildrenadmittedtopicustudyprotocolforapilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialreduce1 |