在重症监护(CLASSIC)试验中,根据标准液体治疗强度限制静脉输液对脓毒性休克的保守和自由治疗方法的影响

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-24 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006679
Praleene Sivapalan, Benjamin S Kaas-Hansen, Tine S Meyhoff, Peter B Hjortrup, Maj-Brit N Kjær, Jon H Laake, Maria Cronhjort, Stephan M Jakob, Maurizio Cecconi, Marek Nalos, Marlies Ostermann, Manu L N G Malbrain, Morten H Møller, Anders Perner, Anders Granholm
{"title":"在重症监护(CLASSIC)试验中,根据标准液体治疗强度限制静脉输液对脓毒性休克的保守和自由治疗方法的影响","authors":"Praleene Sivapalan, Benjamin S Kaas-Hansen, Tine S Meyhoff, Peter B Hjortrup, Maj-Brit N Kjær, Jon H Laake, Maria Cronhjort, Stephan M Jakob, Maurizio Cecconi, Marek Nalos, Marlies Ostermann, Manu L N G Malbrain, Morten H Møller, Anders Perner, Anders Granholm","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In the Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial, restriction of IV fluid volumes led to similar overall mortality in ICU patients with septic shock. We assessed if variation in standard IV fluid treatment intensity across sites impacted the effects of fluid restriction.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICU.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>The CLASSIC trial enrolled adult ICU patients with septic shock. We included 1366 participants from 19 sites, representing 88% of the full trial population. All sites with greater than or equal to 15 participants in the standard-fluid group were included in this study.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Restrictive vs. standard IV fluid therapy.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We used machine learning (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) to predict the IV fluid volumes in the first 24 hours in the standard-fluid group while accounting for participant characteristics that could contribute to treatment variations. We then classified sites into intensity subgroups based on the mean differences between predicted and administered IV fluid volumes in the first 24 hours in the standard-fluid group. We assessed the intervention effects on mortality, serious adverse events and reactions, days alive without life support, and days alive out of hospital at day 90 across these intensity subgroups, using hierarchical Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. Sensitivity analyses evaluated intervention effects separately in each site. In the standard-fluid group, the median absolute difference between administered and predicted IV fluid volumes was -118 mL (interquartile range, -1,341 to 1,731 mL; full range, -5,873 to 11,761 mL). Sites were categorized into five intensity subgroups. The absolute differences in mortality across these subgroups ranged from -2.7% point to 1.4% point. We found similar effects of restrictive vs. standard IV fluid treatment on all outcomes within the intensity subgroups. Results were similar in the sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, variation in standard IV fluid volumes across sites did not substantially impact the effects of fluid restriction on outcomes after accounting for patient characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e1590-e1600"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of IV Fluid Restriction According to Standard Fluid Treatment Intensity Across Conservative Versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) Trial Sites.\",\"authors\":\"Praleene Sivapalan, Benjamin S Kaas-Hansen, Tine S Meyhoff, Peter B Hjortrup, Maj-Brit N Kjær, Jon H Laake, Maria Cronhjort, Stephan M Jakob, Maurizio Cecconi, Marek Nalos, Marlies Ostermann, Manu L N G Malbrain, Morten H Møller, Anders Perner, Anders Granholm\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In the Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial, restriction of IV fluid volumes led to similar overall mortality in ICU patients with septic shock. We assessed if variation in standard IV fluid treatment intensity across sites impacted the effects of fluid restriction.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICU.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>The CLASSIC trial enrolled adult ICU patients with septic shock. We included 1366 participants from 19 sites, representing 88% of the full trial population. All sites with greater than or equal to 15 participants in the standard-fluid group were included in this study.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Restrictive vs. standard IV fluid therapy.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We used machine learning (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) to predict the IV fluid volumes in the first 24 hours in the standard-fluid group while accounting for participant characteristics that could contribute to treatment variations. We then classified sites into intensity subgroups based on the mean differences between predicted and administered IV fluid volumes in the first 24 hours in the standard-fluid group. We assessed the intervention effects on mortality, serious adverse events and reactions, days alive without life support, and days alive out of hospital at day 90 across these intensity subgroups, using hierarchical Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. Sensitivity analyses evaluated intervention effects separately in each site. In the standard-fluid group, the median absolute difference between administered and predicted IV fluid volumes was -118 mL (interquartile range, -1,341 to 1,731 mL; full range, -5,873 to 11,761 mL). Sites were categorized into five intensity subgroups. The absolute differences in mortality across these subgroups ranged from -2.7% point to 1.4% point. We found similar effects of restrictive vs. standard IV fluid treatment on all outcomes within the intensity subgroups. Results were similar in the sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, variation in standard IV fluid volumes across sites did not substantially impact the effects of fluid restriction on outcomes after accounting for patient characteristics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e1590-e1600\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006679\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006679","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在重症监护室脓毒性休克的保守与自由输液治疗(CLASSIC)试验中,限制静脉输液量导致ICU脓毒性休克患者的总死亡率相似。我们评估了不同部位标准静脉输液治疗强度的变化是否会影响输液限制的效果。设计:随机临床试验的二次分析。设置:ICU。患者:CLASSIC试验纳入感染性休克的成年ICU患者。我们纳入了来自19个站点的1366名参与者,占全部试验人群的88%。所有大于或等于15人的标准液组被纳入本研究。干预措施:限制性vs.标准静脉输液。测量结果和主要结果:我们使用机器学习(eXtreme Gradient Boosting)来预测标准液组前24小时内的静脉输液量,同时考虑可能导致治疗变化的参与者特征。然后,我们根据标准液体组前24小时内预测和给药的静脉液体体积之间的平均差异将部位分为强度亚组。我们使用具有弱信息先验的分层贝叶斯模型评估了干预对这些强度亚组的死亡率、严重不良事件和反应、无生命支持存活天数和第90天出院存活天数的影响。敏感性分析分别评估每个部位的干预效果。在标准液组,给药量和预测量之间的绝对中位数差为-118 mL(四分位数范围为-1,341至1,731 mL;全范围,-5,873至11,761毫升)。站点被划分为五个强度亚组。这些亚组之间死亡率的绝对差异从-2.7%到1.4%不等。我们发现,在强度亚组中,限制性静脉输液治疗与标准静脉输液治疗对所有结果的影响相似。敏感性分析结果相似。结论:在脓毒性休克的成年ICU患者中,考虑到患者特征后,不同部位标准静脉输液量的变化并没有实质性地影响限液对结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of IV Fluid Restriction According to Standard Fluid Treatment Intensity Across Conservative Versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) Trial Sites.

Objectives: In the Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial, restriction of IV fluid volumes led to similar overall mortality in ICU patients with septic shock. We assessed if variation in standard IV fluid treatment intensity across sites impacted the effects of fluid restriction.

Design: Secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial.

Setting: ICU.

Patients: The CLASSIC trial enrolled adult ICU patients with septic shock. We included 1366 participants from 19 sites, representing 88% of the full trial population. All sites with greater than or equal to 15 participants in the standard-fluid group were included in this study.

Interventions: Restrictive vs. standard IV fluid therapy.

Measurements and main results: We used machine learning (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) to predict the IV fluid volumes in the first 24 hours in the standard-fluid group while accounting for participant characteristics that could contribute to treatment variations. We then classified sites into intensity subgroups based on the mean differences between predicted and administered IV fluid volumes in the first 24 hours in the standard-fluid group. We assessed the intervention effects on mortality, serious adverse events and reactions, days alive without life support, and days alive out of hospital at day 90 across these intensity subgroups, using hierarchical Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. Sensitivity analyses evaluated intervention effects separately in each site. In the standard-fluid group, the median absolute difference between administered and predicted IV fluid volumes was -118 mL (interquartile range, -1,341 to 1,731 mL; full range, -5,873 to 11,761 mL). Sites were categorized into five intensity subgroups. The absolute differences in mortality across these subgroups ranged from -2.7% point to 1.4% point. We found similar effects of restrictive vs. standard IV fluid treatment on all outcomes within the intensity subgroups. Results were similar in the sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, variation in standard IV fluid volumes across sites did not substantially impact the effects of fluid restriction on outcomes after accounting for patient characteristics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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