• Acta Anaesthesiol Scand · Feb 2024

    Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

    • Praleene Sivapalan, Tine Sylvest Meyhoff, Peter Buhl Hjortrup, Theis Lange, Benjamin Skov Kaas-Hansen, Maj-Brit N Kjaer, Jon Henrik Laake, Maria Cronhjort, Stephan M Jakob, Maurizio Cecconi, Marek Nalos, Marlies Ostermann, MalbrainManu L N GMLNG0000-0002-1816-5255First Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland., MøllerMorten HylanderMH0000-0002-6378-9673Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.Deptartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denma, Anders Perner, and Anders Granholm.
    • Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
    • Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2024 Feb 1; 68 (2): 236246236-246.

    BackgroundThe CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).MethodsWe analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation.ResultsThe absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses.ConclusionWe could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.