Dataset Information

Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery (RELIEF): rationale and design for a multicentre randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The optimal intravenous fluid regimen for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery is unclear. However, results from many small studies suggest a restrictive regimen may lead to better outcomes. A large, definitive clinical trial evaluating perioperative fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery, therefore, is required.

Methods/analysis

We designed a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (the RELIEF trial). A total of 3000 patients were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated to a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre and planned critical care admission. The expected fluid volumes in the first 24 hour from the start of surgery in restrictive and liberal groups were ≤3.0 L and ≥5.4 L, respectively. Patient enrolment is complete, and follow-up for the primary end point is ongoing. The primary outcome is disability-free survival at 1 year after surgery, with disability defined as a persistent (at least 6 months) reduction in functional status using the 12-item version of the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule.

Ethics/dissemination

The RELIEF trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committees of all participating sites. Participant recruitment began in March 2013 and was completed in August 2016, and 1-year follow-up will conclude in August 2017. Publication of the results of the RELIEF trial is anticipated in early 2018.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01424150.

SUBMITTER: Myles P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5353290 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery (RELIEF): rationale and design for a multicentre randomised trial.

Myles Paul P Bellomo Rinaldo R Corcoran Tomas T Forbes Andrew A Wallace Sophie S Peyton Philip P Christophi Chris C Story David D Leslie Kate K Serpell Jonathan J McGuinness Shay S Parke Rachel R

BMJ open 20170303 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>The optimal intravenous fluid regimen for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery is unclear. However, results from many small studies suggest a restrictive regimen may lead to better outcomes. A large, definitive clinical trial evaluating perioperative fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery, therefore, is required.<h4>Methods/analysis</h4>We designed a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (the RELIEF trial). A total of 3000 patients were enrolled i ...[more]

PMID: 28259855

Similar Datasets

Project description:Liberal fluid strategies in critically ill patients are associated with harm, thought to be due to endothelial and glycocalyx injury. As the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial not only failed to report survival benefit with restrictive fluids but was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury, we hypothesized that factors other than endothelial and glycocalyx injury were likely to account for these findings. Consequently, we measured injury biomarkers in a cohort of the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial.DesignThe restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial was an international, randomized, assessor-blinded trial comparing restrictive with liberal IV fluid regimens that represented traditional care in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.Setting and patientsCohort of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery bloods was collected at a single major site (161 patients) prior to, day 1 and day 3 after surgery.InterventionBloods were blindly and randomly batch analyzed for plasma markers of endothelial/glycocalyx injury-angiopoietin-1, angiopoietin-2, soluble tyrosine-protein kinase-2 receptor, soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1, syndecan, and tumor necrosis factor-α. Data were examined as restrictive versus liberal enrollment groups and high versus low (± 5,000 mL) fluid groups. Differences were examined by linear mixed modeling.Measurement and main resultsThere were no significant differences in any biomarkers between the restrictive (n = 75) and liberal (n = 86) groups. When examined as low (n = 81) and high (n = 79) fluid groups, plasma angiopoietin-2 (p = 0.009) and soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (p = 0.01) were elevated in the high fluid group. There were no differences in other biomarkers.ConclusionsAlthough these results are consistent with previous findings of vascular injury following liberal fluid therapy, they suggest alternative mechanisms underlie the clinical outcomes from restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery study.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT01424150.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients' outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded.ResultsAfter full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (- 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0-66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02-0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups CONCLUSIONS: In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive.Trial registrationCRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059 .

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.MethodsIn an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.ResultsA total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAmong patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

Project description:BackgroundElevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and optic nerve edema occurring during prone surgeries may cause ocular and optic nerve ischaemia injury. We hypothesized that a liberal fluid protocol might further increase IOP and optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) than a restrictive fluid protocol for patients in the prone position.MethodsA single-centre, prospective and randomized trial was conducted. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: the liberal fluid infusion group, in which repeated bolus doses of Ringer's lactate solution were given to maintain pulse pressure variation (PPV) within 6~9%, and the restrictive fluid infusion group, where PPV was maintained within 13-16%. IOP and ONSD were measured in both eyes at 10min after the anaesthesia induction in the supine position, 10min after the prone position placement, and 1h and 2h since the prone position was placed, at the conclusion of surgery, and returned to the supine position.ResultsA total of 97 patients were recruited and completed the study. IOP increased significantly from 12±3mmHg in the supine position to 31±5 mmHg (p<0.001) at the end of surgery in the liberal fluid infusion group and from 12±2 to 28±4 mmHg (p<0.001) in the restrictive fluid infusion group. There was a statistically significant difference in the change of IOP over time between the two groups (p=0.019). ONSD increased significantly from 5.3±0.3mm in the supine position to 5.5±0.3mm (p<0.001) at the end of surgery in both groups (both p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the change of ONSD over time between the two groups (p>0.05).ConclusionsCompared to the restrictive fluid protocol, the liberal fluid protocol increased IOP but not ONSD in patients undergoing prone spine surgery.Trial registrationThe study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov ) prior to patient enrollment, ID: NCT03890510, on March 26, 2019. The principal investigator was Xiao-Yu Yang.

Dataset Information

Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery (RELIEF): rationale and design for a multicentre randomised trial.

Introduction

Methods/analysis

Ethics/dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery (RELIEF): rationale and design for a multicentre randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets