Cargando…

Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). DESIGN: Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. SETTING: 13 hospitals in England. PATIENTS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Inwald, David Philip, Canter, Ruth, Woolfall, Kerry, Mouncey, Paul, Zenasni, Zohra, O’Hara, Caitlin, Carter, Anjali, Jones, Nicola, Lyttle, Mark D, Nadel, Simon, Peters, Mark J, Harrison, David A, Rowan, Kathryn M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30087153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-314924
_version_ 1783425441961345024
author Inwald, David Philip
Canter, Ruth
Woolfall, Kerry
Mouncey, Paul
Zenasni, Zohra
O’Hara, Caitlin
Carter, Anjali
Jones, Nicola
Lyttle, Mark D
Nadel, Simon
Peters, Mark J
Harrison, David A
Rowan, Kathryn M
author_facet Inwald, David Philip
Canter, Ruth
Woolfall, Kerry
Mouncey, Paul
Zenasni, Zohra
O’Hara, Caitlin
Carter, Anjali
Jones, Nicola
Lyttle, Mark D
Nadel, Simon
Peters, Mark J
Harrison, David A
Rowan, Kathryn M
author_sort Inwald, David Philip
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). DESIGN: Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. SETTING: 13 hospitals in England. PATIENTS: Children presenting to emergency departments with suspected infection and shock after 20 mL/kg fluid. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to further 10 or 20 mL/kg fluid boluses every 15 min for up to 4 hours if still in shock. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: These were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, separation, potential trial outcome measures, and parent and staff perspectives. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants were randomised; two were withdrawn. 23 (59%) of 39 in the 10 mL/kg arm and 25 (74%) of 34 in the 20 mL/kg arm required a single trial bolus before the shock resolved. 79% of boluses were delivered per protocol in the 10 mL/kg arm and 55% in the 20 mL/kg arm. The volume of study bolus fluid after 4 hours was 44% lower in the 10 mL/kg group (mean 14.5 vs 27.5 mL/kg). The Paediatric Index of Mortality-2 score was 2.1 (IQR 1.6–2.7) in the 10 mL/kg group and 2.0 (IQR 1.6–2.5) in the 20 mL/kg group. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and PICU-free days at 30 days did not differ significantly between the groups. In the perspectives study, the trial was generally supported, although some problems with protocol adherence were described. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15244462.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6557227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65572272019-06-26 Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial Inwald, David Philip Canter, Ruth Woolfall, Kerry Mouncey, Paul Zenasni, Zohra O’Hara, Caitlin Carter, Anjali Jones, Nicola Lyttle, Mark D Nadel, Simon Peters, Mark J Harrison, David A Rowan, Kathryn M Arch Dis Child Original Article OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). DESIGN: Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. SETTING: 13 hospitals in England. PATIENTS: Children presenting to emergency departments with suspected infection and shock after 20 mL/kg fluid. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to further 10 or 20 mL/kg fluid boluses every 15 min for up to 4 hours if still in shock. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: These were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, separation, potential trial outcome measures, and parent and staff perspectives. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants were randomised; two were withdrawn. 23 (59%) of 39 in the 10 mL/kg arm and 25 (74%) of 34 in the 20 mL/kg arm required a single trial bolus before the shock resolved. 79% of boluses were delivered per protocol in the 10 mL/kg arm and 55% in the 20 mL/kg arm. The volume of study bolus fluid after 4 hours was 44% lower in the 10 mL/kg group (mean 14.5 vs 27.5 mL/kg). The Paediatric Index of Mortality-2 score was 2.1 (IQR 1.6–2.7) in the 10 mL/kg group and 2.0 (IQR 1.6–2.5) in the 20 mL/kg group. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and PICU-free days at 30 days did not differ significantly between the groups. In the perspectives study, the trial was generally supported, although some problems with protocol adherence were described. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15244462. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-05 2018-08-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6557227/ /pubmed/30087153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-314924 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Inwald, David Philip
Canter, Ruth
Woolfall, Kerry
Mouncey, Paul
Zenasni, Zohra
O’Hara, Caitlin
Carter, Anjali
Jones, Nicola
Lyttle, Mark D
Nadel, Simon
Peters, Mark J
Harrison, David A
Rowan, Kathryn M
Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial
title Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial
title_full Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial
title_fullStr Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial
title_full_unstemmed Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial
title_short Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial
title_sort restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: results of the fluids in shock pilot trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30087153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-314924
work_keys_str_mv AT inwalddavidphilip restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT canterruth restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT woolfallkerry restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT mounceypaul restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT zenasnizohra restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT oharacaitlin restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT carteranjali restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT jonesnicola restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT lyttlemarkd restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT nadelsimon restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT petersmarkj restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT harrisondavida restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial
AT rowankathrynm restrictedfluidbolusvolumeinearlysepticshockresultsofthefluidsinshockpilottrial