{"title":"针对感染性休克重症监护患者非复苏液体的优化限制策略对体液平衡的影响:一项单盲、多中心、随机、对照、试点研究","authors":"Nicolas Boulet, Jean-Pierre Quenot, Chris Serrand, Nadiejda Antier, Sylvain Garnier, Aurèle Buzancais, Laurent Muller, Claire Roger, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Saber Davide Barbar","doi":"10.1186/s13054-024-05155-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In septic shock, the classic fluid resuscitation strategy can lead to a potentially harmful positive fluid balance. This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled pilot study assessed the effectiveness of a restrictive fluid strategy aiming to limit daily volume. Patients 18–85 years’ old admitted to the ICU department of three French hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they had septic shock and were in the first 24 h of vasopressor infusion. Exclusion criteria were acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy, end stage chronic kidney disease, and severe malnutrition. Patients were electronically randomized 1:1 to either an optimized fluid restriction (reducing fluid intake as much as possible in terms of maintenance fluids and fluids for drug dilution during the first 7 days) or standard fluid strategy. The primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance (ml/kg) in the first 5 days. Patients and statisticians were blinded to group arm, but not clinicians. Between September 2021 and February 2023, 1201 patients were screened and 50 included, with two in the control group withdrawing, thus 48 patients were analyzed (24 in each group). In the first 5 days, the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups received 89.7 (IQR 35; 128.9) and 114.3 (IQR 78.8; 168.5) ml/kg of fluid, respectively (mean difference: 35.9 ml/kg [0.0; 71.8], p = 0.0506). After 5 days, the median cumulative fluid balance was 6.9 (IQR − 13.7; 52.1) and 35.0 (IQR − 7.9; 40.2) ml/kg in the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups, respectively (absolute difference 13.2 [95%CI − 15.2; 41.6], p = 0.42). After 28 days, mortality and the numbers of days alive without life support were similar between groups. The main adverse events were severe hypernatremia in 1 and 2 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively, and acute kidney injury KDIGO 3 in 4 and 7 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively. In ICU patients with septic shock, an optimized restrictive fluid strategy targeting hidden fluid intakes did not reduce the overall fluid balance at day 5. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04947904, registered on 1 July 2021. ","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact on fluid balance of an optimized restrictive strategy targeting non-resuscitative fluids in intensive care patients with septic shock: a single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, pilot study\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Boulet, Jean-Pierre Quenot, Chris Serrand, Nadiejda Antier, Sylvain Garnier, Aurèle Buzancais, Laurent Muller, Claire Roger, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Saber Davide Barbar\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13054-024-05155-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In septic shock, the classic fluid resuscitation strategy can lead to a potentially harmful positive fluid balance. This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled pilot study assessed the effectiveness of a restrictive fluid strategy aiming to limit daily volume. Patients 18–85 years’ old admitted to the ICU department of three French hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they had septic shock and were in the first 24 h of vasopressor infusion. Exclusion criteria were acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy, end stage chronic kidney disease, and severe malnutrition. Patients were electronically randomized 1:1 to either an optimized fluid restriction (reducing fluid intake as much as possible in terms of maintenance fluids and fluids for drug dilution during the first 7 days) or standard fluid strategy. The primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance (ml/kg) in the first 5 days. Patients and statisticians were blinded to group arm, but not clinicians. Between September 2021 and February 2023, 1201 patients were screened and 50 included, with two in the control group withdrawing, thus 48 patients were analyzed (24 in each group). In the first 5 days, the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups received 89.7 (IQR 35; 128.9) and 114.3 (IQR 78.8; 168.5) ml/kg of fluid, respectively (mean difference: 35.9 ml/kg [0.0; 71.8], p = 0.0506). After 5 days, the median cumulative fluid balance was 6.9 (IQR − 13.7; 52.1) and 35.0 (IQR − 7.9; 40.2) ml/kg in the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups, respectively (absolute difference 13.2 [95%CI − 15.2; 41.6], p = 0.42). After 28 days, mortality and the numbers of days alive without life support were similar between groups. The main adverse events were severe hypernatremia in 1 and 2 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively, and acute kidney injury KDIGO 3 in 4 and 7 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively. In ICU patients with septic shock, an optimized restrictive fluid strategy targeting hidden fluid intakes did not reduce the overall fluid balance at day 5. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04947904, registered on 1 July 2021. \",\"PeriodicalId\":10811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-21\",\"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/s13054-024-05155-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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05155-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
摘要
在感染性休克中,经典的液体复苏策略可能导致潜在有害的体液正平衡。这项多中心、随机、单盲、平行、对照的初步研究评估了旨在限制每日量的限制性液体策略的有效性。法国三家医院ICU收治的18-85岁患者,如果发生感染性休克并在前24小时输注血管加压素,则符合纳入条件。排除标准为需要肾脏替代治疗的急性肾损伤、终末期慢性肾病和严重营养不良。患者以1:1的比例进行电子随机分组,采用优化的液体限制(在前7天内尽可能减少维持液体和药物稀释液体的摄入)或标准液体策略。主要终点是前5天的累积体液平衡(ml/kg)。患者和统计学家对实验组不知情,但临床医生不知情。2021年9月至2023年2月,共筛选1201例患者,纳入50例,对照组2例退出,共分析48例患者(每组24例)。前5天,优化限制策略组和对照组分别获得89.7 (IQR 35;128.9)和114.3 (IQR 78.8;168.5) ml/kg流体(平均差值:35.9 ml/kg [0.0;[71.8], p = 0.0506)。5天后,累积体液平衡中位数为6.9 (IQR−13.7;52.1)和35.0 (IQR−7.9;优化限制策略组和对照组分别为40.2 ml/kg(绝对差值13.2 [95%CI−15.2;[41.6], p = 0.42)。28天后,两组之间的死亡率和无生命维持的存活天数相似。限液组和对照组的主要不良事件分别为1例和2例严重高钠血症,4例和7例急性肾损伤KDIGO 3。在感染性休克ICU患者中,针对隐性液体摄入的优化限制性液体策略并未降低第5天的总体液体平衡。ClinicalTrials.gov识别码NCT04947904,于2021年7月1日注册。
Impact on fluid balance of an optimized restrictive strategy targeting non-resuscitative fluids in intensive care patients with septic shock: a single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, pilot study
In septic shock, the classic fluid resuscitation strategy can lead to a potentially harmful positive fluid balance. This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled pilot study assessed the effectiveness of a restrictive fluid strategy aiming to limit daily volume. Patients 18–85 years’ old admitted to the ICU department of three French hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they had septic shock and were in the first 24 h of vasopressor infusion. Exclusion criteria were acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy, end stage chronic kidney disease, and severe malnutrition. Patients were electronically randomized 1:1 to either an optimized fluid restriction (reducing fluid intake as much as possible in terms of maintenance fluids and fluids for drug dilution during the first 7 days) or standard fluid strategy. The primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance (ml/kg) in the first 5 days. Patients and statisticians were blinded to group arm, but not clinicians. Between September 2021 and February 2023, 1201 patients were screened and 50 included, with two in the control group withdrawing, thus 48 patients were analyzed (24 in each group). In the first 5 days, the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups received 89.7 (IQR 35; 128.9) and 114.3 (IQR 78.8; 168.5) ml/kg of fluid, respectively (mean difference: 35.9 ml/kg [0.0; 71.8], p = 0.0506). After 5 days, the median cumulative fluid balance was 6.9 (IQR − 13.7; 52.1) and 35.0 (IQR − 7.9; 40.2) ml/kg in the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups, respectively (absolute difference 13.2 [95%CI − 15.2; 41.6], p = 0.42). After 28 days, mortality and the numbers of days alive without life support were similar between groups. The main adverse events were severe hypernatremia in 1 and 2 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively, and acute kidney injury KDIGO 3 in 4 and 7 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively. In ICU patients with septic shock, an optimized restrictive fluid strategy targeting hidden fluid intakes did not reduce the overall fluid balance at day 5. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04947904, registered on 1 July 2021.
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.