Cargando…

Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are often used in the treatment of sepsis. The better strategy regarding fluid volume is debated, but preliminary data in patients with septic shock or sepsis-related hypotension favor restrictive fluid administration. We describe the protocol and statistical analysis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jessen, Marie Kristine, Andersen, Lars Wiuff, Thomsen, Marie-Louise Holm, Kristensen, Peter, Hayeri, Wazhma, Hassel, Ranva Espegård, Perner, Anders, Petersen, Jens Aage Kølsen, Kirkegaard, Hans
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8962933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35351214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01034-y
_version_ 1784677883145355264
author Jessen, Marie Kristine
Andersen, Lars Wiuff
Thomsen, Marie-Louise Holm
Kristensen, Peter
Hayeri, Wazhma
Hassel, Ranva Espegård
Perner, Anders
Petersen, Jens Aage Kølsen
Kirkegaard, Hans
author_facet Jessen, Marie Kristine
Andersen, Lars Wiuff
Thomsen, Marie-Louise Holm
Kristensen, Peter
Hayeri, Wazhma
Hassel, Ranva Espegård
Perner, Anders
Petersen, Jens Aage Kølsen
Kirkegaard, Hans
author_sort Jessen, Marie Kristine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are often used in the treatment of sepsis. The better strategy regarding fluid volume is debated, but preliminary data in patients with septic shock or sepsis-related hypotension favor restrictive fluid administration. We describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—a multicenter, randomized clinical proof-of-concept trial. The aim of the REFACED Sepsis trial is to test if a restrictive intravenous fluid protocol in emergency department patients with sepsis without shock is feasible and decreases the intravenous fluid volume administered in comparison to standard care. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-labeled, feasibility trial investigating volumes of crystalloid fluid within 24 h in 124 patients with sepsis without shock enrolled at three emergency departments in the Central Denmark Region. Patients are allocated to two different intravenous fluid regimens: a restrictive approach using four trigger criteria for fluid administration vs. standard care. The primary, feasibility outcome is total intravenous, crystalloid fluid volume within 24 h, and key secondary outcomes include protocol violations, total fluids (intravenous and oral) within 24 h, and serious adverse reactions and suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Status: The trial started in November 2021, and the last patient is anticipated to be included in January 2022. DISCUSSION: Sepsis is very common in emergency department patients and fluid administration is very frequently administered in these patients. However, the evidence to guide fluid administration is very sparse. This feasibility trial will be the foundation for a potential future large-scale trial investigating restrictive vs. standard fluid administration in patients with sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2021-000224-35 (date: 2021 May 03), ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05076435 (date: 2021 October 13), Committee on Health Research Ethics – Central Denmark Region: 1-10-72-163-21 (date: 2021 June 28). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01034-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8962933
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89629332022-03-30 Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial Jessen, Marie Kristine Andersen, Lars Wiuff Thomsen, Marie-Louise Holm Kristensen, Peter Hayeri, Wazhma Hassel, Ranva Espegård Perner, Anders Petersen, Jens Aage Kølsen Kirkegaard, Hans Pilot Feasibility Stud Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are often used in the treatment of sepsis. The better strategy regarding fluid volume is debated, but preliminary data in patients with septic shock or sepsis-related hypotension favor restrictive fluid administration. We describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—a multicenter, randomized clinical proof-of-concept trial. The aim of the REFACED Sepsis trial is to test if a restrictive intravenous fluid protocol in emergency department patients with sepsis without shock is feasible and decreases the intravenous fluid volume administered in comparison to standard care. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-labeled, feasibility trial investigating volumes of crystalloid fluid within 24 h in 124 patients with sepsis without shock enrolled at three emergency departments in the Central Denmark Region. Patients are allocated to two different intravenous fluid regimens: a restrictive approach using four trigger criteria for fluid administration vs. standard care. The primary, feasibility outcome is total intravenous, crystalloid fluid volume within 24 h, and key secondary outcomes include protocol violations, total fluids (intravenous and oral) within 24 h, and serious adverse reactions and suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Status: The trial started in November 2021, and the last patient is anticipated to be included in January 2022. DISCUSSION: Sepsis is very common in emergency department patients and fluid administration is very frequently administered in these patients. However, the evidence to guide fluid administration is very sparse. This feasibility trial will be the foundation for a potential future large-scale trial investigating restrictive vs. standard fluid administration in patients with sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2021-000224-35 (date: 2021 May 03), ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05076435 (date: 2021 October 13), Committee on Health Research Ethics – Central Denmark Region: 1-10-72-163-21 (date: 2021 June 28). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01034-y. BioMed Central 2022-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8962933/ /pubmed/35351214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01034-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Jessen, Marie Kristine
Andersen, Lars Wiuff
Thomsen, Marie-Louise Holm
Kristensen, Peter
Hayeri, Wazhma
Hassel, Ranva Espegård
Perner, Anders
Petersen, Jens Aage Kølsen
Kirkegaard, Hans
Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial
title Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial
title_full Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial
title_fullStr Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial
title_full_unstemmed Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial
title_short Restrictive Fluid Administration vs. Standard of Care in Emergency Department Sepsis Patients (REFACED Sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial
title_sort restrictive fluid administration vs. standard of care in emergency department sepsis patients (refaced sepsis)—protocol for a multicenter, randomized, clinical, proof-of-concept trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8962933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35351214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01034-y
work_keys_str_mv AT jessenmariekristine restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT andersenlarswiuff restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT thomsenmarielouiseholm restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT kristensenpeter restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT hayeriwazhma restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT hasselranvaespegard restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT perneranders restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT petersenjensaagekølsen restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial
AT kirkegaardhans restrictivefluidadministrationvsstandardofcareinemergencydepartmentsepsispatientsrefacedsepsisprotocolforamulticenterrandomizedclinicalproofofconcepttrial