The ROSE framework for fluid therapy in critically ill pediatric patients.

IF 1.7 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Romina Aparecida Dos Santos Gomes, Manu L N G Malbrain, Adriana Teixeira Rodrigues, Maria do Carmo Barros De Melo, Flávia Cordeiro Valério, Jaisson Gustavo Da Fonseca, Gabriel Carlos Santos Dutra, Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira
{"title":"The ROSE framework for fluid therapy in critically ill pediatric patients.","authors":"Romina Aparecida Dos Santos Gomes, Manu L N G Malbrain, Adriana Teixeira Rodrigues, Maria do Carmo Barros De Melo, Flávia Cordeiro Valério, Jaisson Gustavo Da Fonseca, Gabriel Carlos Santos Dutra, Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira","doi":"10.5114/ait/217698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The study aimed to assess the applicability of the ROSE conceptual framework (Resuscitation, Optimization, Stabilization, Evacuation) for fluid therapy in critically ill pediatric patients, focusing on its distinct phases, prevention of fluid accumulation, and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A quasi-experimental study was conducted including 122 (retrospective: n = 71; prospective: n = 51) mechanically ventilated and vasoactive-dependent children. A retrospective cohort was compared with a prospective cohort following structured training on ROSE-guided fluid management. Outcomes included fluid accumulation percentage (FA%), duration of mechanical ventilation, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay, and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Adherence to phase-specific FA% targets was also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FA% was similar between cohorts (retrospective vs. prospective) on PICU days 1, 3, and 10 (median [IQR] 1.8% [0.2-4.3] vs. 1.9% [0.8-3.2], P = 0.934; 5.5% [1.7-10.3] vs. 6.1% [3.8-10.2], P = 0.565; 8.3% [0.8-24.8] vs. 7.2% [2.6-18.7], P = 0.848). By ROSE phase, FA% was comparable in Resuscitation (3.5% [2.0-6.0] vs. 4.7% [2.4-6.9], P = 0.244), Optimization (3.0% [0.1-6.7] vs. 4.2% [1.0-7.9], P = 0.261), and Evacuation (2.5% [-2.6-5.3] vs. 2.4% [-0.0-7.4], P = 0.256), but higher during Stabilization (2.5% [0.0-6.9] vs. 4.2% [2.0-8.9], P = 0.043). Mechanical ventilation, length of PICU stay, RRT, and fluid elimination were similar. No independent predictors emerged in logistic regression. FA% target adherence rose from 67.9% to 72.4% after ROSE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ROSE framework in pediatric fluid management is feasible, provides benchmarking for FA% control, and shows promise for individualizing fluid management. Future validation in ROSE-naive centers is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"58 1","pages":"20-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12969978/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait/217698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The study aimed to assess the applicability of the ROSE conceptual framework (Resuscitation, Optimization, Stabilization, Evacuation) for fluid therapy in critically ill pediatric patients, focusing on its distinct phases, prevention of fluid accumulation, and clinical outcomes.

Material and methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted including 122 (retrospective: n = 71; prospective: n = 51) mechanically ventilated and vasoactive-dependent children. A retrospective cohort was compared with a prospective cohort following structured training on ROSE-guided fluid management. Outcomes included fluid accumulation percentage (FA%), duration of mechanical ventilation, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay, and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Adherence to phase-specific FA% targets was also assessed.

Results: FA% was similar between cohorts (retrospective vs. prospective) on PICU days 1, 3, and 10 (median [IQR] 1.8% [0.2-4.3] vs. 1.9% [0.8-3.2], P = 0.934; 5.5% [1.7-10.3] vs. 6.1% [3.8-10.2], P = 0.565; 8.3% [0.8-24.8] vs. 7.2% [2.6-18.7], P = 0.848). By ROSE phase, FA% was comparable in Resuscitation (3.5% [2.0-6.0] vs. 4.7% [2.4-6.9], P = 0.244), Optimization (3.0% [0.1-6.7] vs. 4.2% [1.0-7.9], P = 0.261), and Evacuation (2.5% [-2.6-5.3] vs. 2.4% [-0.0-7.4], P = 0.256), but higher during Stabilization (2.5% [0.0-6.9] vs. 4.2% [2.0-8.9], P = 0.043). Mechanical ventilation, length of PICU stay, RRT, and fluid elimination were similar. No independent predictors emerged in logistic regression. FA% target adherence rose from 67.9% to 72.4% after ROSE.

Conclusions: The ROSE framework in pediatric fluid management is feasible, provides benchmarking for FA% control, and shows promise for individualizing fluid management. Future validation in ROSE-naive centers is warranted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

危重儿科患者液体治疗的ROSE框架。
本研究旨在评估ROSE概念框架(复苏、优化、稳定、疏散)在儿科危重患者液体治疗中的适用性,重点关注其不同阶段、液体积聚的预防和临床结果。材料和方法:对122例(回顾性:71例;前瞻性:51例)机械通气和血管活性依赖儿童进行准实验研究。回顾性队列与前瞻性队列进行比较,前瞻性队列接受了rose引导的流体管理的结构化培训。结果包括液体积聚百分比(FA%)、机械通气持续时间、儿科重症监护病房(PICU)住院时间和肾脏替代治疗(RRT)的需要。对特定阶段FA%目标的依从性也进行了评估。结果:PICU第1、3和10天,队列间FA%相似(回顾性与前瞻性)(中位数[IQR] 1.8% [0.2-4.3] vs. 1.9% [0.8-3.2], P = 0.934; 5.5% [1.7-10.3] vs. 6.1% [3.8-10.2], P = 0.565; 8.3% [0.8-24.8] vs. 7.2% [2.6-18.7], P = 0.848)。在ROSE阶段,FA%在复苏阶段(3.5%[2.0-6.0]对4.7% [2.4-6.9],P = 0.244)、优化阶段(3.0%[0.1-6.7]对4.2% [1.0-7.9],P = 0.261)和疏散阶段(2.5%[-2.6-5.3]对2.4% [-0.0-7.4],P = 0.256)具有可比性,但在稳定阶段较高(2.5%[0.0-6.9]对4.2% [2.0-8.9],P = 0.043)。机械通气、PICU停留时间、RRT和液体清除相似。在逻辑回归中没有出现独立的预测因子。在rose之后,FA%目标依从性从67.9%上升到72.4%。结论:ROSE框架在儿科液体管理中是可行的,为FA%控制提供了基准,并显示出个性化液体管理的前景。未来在玫瑰幼稚中心的验证是有保证的。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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
小红书