Restrictive fluid management with early de-escalation versus usual care in critically ill patients (reduce trial): a feasibility randomized controlled trial

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Thummaporn Naorungroj, Ukrit Prajantasen, Tewa Sanla-ead, Tanuwong Viarasilpa, Surat Tongyoo
{"title":"Restrictive fluid management with early de-escalation versus usual care in critically ill patients (reduce trial): a feasibility randomized controlled trial","authors":"Thummaporn Naorungroj, Ukrit Prajantasen, Tewa Sanla-ead, Tanuwong Viarasilpa, Surat Tongyoo","doi":"10.1186/s13054-025-05624-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Optimal fluid management in critically ill patients varies across different phases of care. This study examined the feasibility of adding a restrictive fluid strategy with early de-escalation to standard care for patients with circulatory shock. We performed a single-center, feasibility, randomized controlled trial, involving patients with shock who required fluid resuscitation and were admitted in the medical intensive care unit. After initial fluid resuscitation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either a restrictive fluid strategy or usual care. The restrictive group targeted a near-zero fluid balance over 3 days by limiting fluid intake and using diuretics or mechanical fluid removal when needed. The primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance at day 3. The secondary outcomes were the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital, the mechanical ventilation duration, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and mortality. We enrolled 100 patients, assigning 50 to the restrictive strategy and 50 to usual care. By day 3, the restrictive group showed a lower cumulative fluid balance than usual care (‒2353 mL vs. 793 mL, p < 0.001). This trend continued to day 7 (‒3032 mL vs. 1125 mL, p < 0.001). The restrictive group also had shorter stays in the intensive care unit and the hospital (7 vs. 10 days, p = 0.006; 16 vs. 22 days, p = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in hospital or 30-day mortality rates between the groups (18% vs. 38%, p = 0.05; 12% vs. 30%, p = 0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of acute kidney injury or the use of renal replacement therapy. A restrictive fluid strategy with early de-escalation and de-resuscitation is feasible and may reduce fluid accumulation and showed a signal for reduced hospital stay without increasing adverse events in critically ill patients following acute fluid resuscitation. TCTR20220719002 (The trial has been reviewed and approved by TCTR committee on July 16th, 2022). A restrictive fluid strategy that employs a protocol-based intervention to achieve a target fluid balance after initial resuscitation in patients with sepsis appears feasible, does not increase harm, and may improve outcomes.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05624-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Optimal fluid management in critically ill patients varies across different phases of care. This study examined the feasibility of adding a restrictive fluid strategy with early de-escalation to standard care for patients with circulatory shock. We performed a single-center, feasibility, randomized controlled trial, involving patients with shock who required fluid resuscitation and were admitted in the medical intensive care unit. After initial fluid resuscitation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either a restrictive fluid strategy or usual care. The restrictive group targeted a near-zero fluid balance over 3 days by limiting fluid intake and using diuretics or mechanical fluid removal when needed. The primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance at day 3. The secondary outcomes were the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital, the mechanical ventilation duration, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and mortality. We enrolled 100 patients, assigning 50 to the restrictive strategy and 50 to usual care. By day 3, the restrictive group showed a lower cumulative fluid balance than usual care (‒2353 mL vs. 793 mL, p < 0.001). This trend continued to day 7 (‒3032 mL vs. 1125 mL, p < 0.001). The restrictive group also had shorter stays in the intensive care unit and the hospital (7 vs. 10 days, p = 0.006; 16 vs. 22 days, p = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in hospital or 30-day mortality rates between the groups (18% vs. 38%, p = 0.05; 12% vs. 30%, p = 0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of acute kidney injury or the use of renal replacement therapy. A restrictive fluid strategy with early de-escalation and de-resuscitation is feasible and may reduce fluid accumulation and showed a signal for reduced hospital stay without increasing adverse events in critically ill patients following acute fluid resuscitation. TCTR20220719002 (The trial has been reviewed and approved by TCTR committee on July 16th, 2022). A restrictive fluid strategy that employs a protocol-based intervention to achieve a target fluid balance after initial resuscitation in patients with sepsis appears feasible, does not increase harm, and may improve outcomes.
危重患者早期限制性液体管理与常规护理(减少试验):一项可行性随机对照试验
危重病人的最佳液体管理在不同的护理阶段有所不同。本研究探讨了在循环性休克患者的标准治疗中加入早期降压限制性液体策略的可行性。我们进行了一项可行性的单中心随机对照试验,纳入了需要液体复苏并入住医学重症监护病房的休克患者。在最初的液体复苏后,患者被随机分配(1:1)到限制性液体策略或常规护理。限制组的目标是通过限制液体摄入和使用利尿剂或必要时使用机械排尿,在3天内达到接近零的液体平衡。主要终点是第3天的累积体液平衡。次要结局是重症监护病房和医院的住院时间、机械通气时间、急性肾损伤、肾脏替代治疗和死亡率。我们招募了100名患者,其中50人接受限制性治疗,50人接受常规治疗。到第3天,限制组的累积体液平衡低于常规护理组(-2353 mL vs. 793 mL, p < 0.001)。这一趋势持续到第7天(-3032 mL vs. 1125 mL, p < 0.001)。限制组在重症监护病房和医院的住院时间也较短(7天对10天,p = 0.006; 16天对22天,p = 0.02)。两组间住院死亡率和30天死亡率无统计学差异(分别为18%对38%,p = 0.05; 12%对30%,p = 0.05)。同样,在急性肾损伤的发生率或肾脏替代治疗的使用方面也没有观察到显著差异。在急性液体复苏后的危重患者中,采用早期降压和去复苏的限制性液体策略是可行的,可以减少液体积聚,并显示出减少住院时间而不增加不良事件的信号。TCTR20220719002(该试验已于2022年7月16日TCTR委员会审核通过)。在脓毒症患者初始复苏后,采用基于方案的干预措施来达到目标液体平衡的限制性液体策略似乎是可行的,不会增加危害,并可能改善结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信