Dataset Information

Haemodynamic response to crystalloids or colloids in shock: an exploratory subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare the haemodynamic effect of crystalloids and colloids during acute severe hypovolaemic shock. DESIGN:Exploratory subgroup analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Colloids Versus Crystalloids for the Resuscitation of the Critically Ill, CRISTAL, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00318942). SETTING:CRISTAL was conducted in intensive care units in Europe, North Africa and Canada. PARTICIPANTS:Current analysis included all patients who had a pulmonary artery catheter in place at randomisation. 220 patients (117 received crystalloids vs 103 colloids) underwent pulmonary artery catheterisation. INTERVENTION:Crystalloids versus colloids for fluid resuscitation in hypovolaemic shock. OUTCOME MEASURES:Haemodynamic data were collected at the time of randomisation and subsequently on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. RESULTS:Median cumulative volume of fluid administered during the first 7 days was higher in the crystalloids group than in the colloids group (3500 (2000-6000) vs 2500 (1000-4000) mL, p=0.01). Patients in the colloids arm exhibited a lower heart rate over time compared with those allocated to the crystalloids arm (p=0.014). There was no significant difference in Cardiac Index (p=0.053), mean blood pressure (p=0.4), arterial lactates (p=0.9) or global Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (p=0.3) over time between arms. CONCLUSIONS:During acute severe hypovolaemic shock, patients monitored by a pulmonary artery catheter achieved broadly similar haemodynamic outcomes, using lower volumes of colloids than crystalloids. The heart rate was lower in the colloids arm.

SUBMITTER: Heming N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5640079 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Haemodynamic response to crystalloids or colloids in shock: an exploratory subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Heming Nicholas N Elatrous Souheil S Jaber Samir S Dumenil Anne Sylvie AS Cousson Joël J Forceville Xavier X Kimmoun Antoine A Trouillet Jean Louis JL Fichet Jérôme J Anguel Nadia N Darmon Michael M Martin Claude C Chevret Sylvie S Annane Djillali D

BMJ open 20171006 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the haemodynamic effect of crystalloids and colloids during acute severe hypovolaemic shock.<h4>Design</h4>Exploratory subgroup analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Colloids Versus Crystalloids for the Resuscitation of the Critically Ill, CRISTAL, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00318942).<h4>Setting</h4>CRISTAL was conducted in intensive care units in Europe, North Africa and Canada.<h4>Participants</h4>Current analysis included all patients who had a pulmon ...[more]

PMID: 28988172

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLevels of physical activity (PA) in UK children are much lower than recommended and novel approaches to its promotion are needed. The Children, Parents and Pets Exercising Together (CPET) study is the first exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) to develop and evaluate an intervention aimed at dog-based PA promotion in families. CPET aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential efficacy of a theory-driven, family-based, dog walking intervention for 9-11 year olds.MethodsTwenty-eight families were allocated randomly to either receive a 10-week dog based PA intervention or to a control group. Families in the intervention group were motivated and supported to increase the frequency, intensity and duration of dog walking using a number of behaviour change techniques. Parents in the intervention group were asked to complete a short study exit questionnaire. In addition, focus groups with parents and children in the intervention group, and with key stakeholders were undertaken. The primary outcome measure was 10 week change in total volume of PA using the mean accelerometer count per minute (cpm). Intervention and control groups were compared using analysis of covariance. Analysis was performed on an intention to treat basis.ResultsTwenty five families were retained at follow up (89%) and 97% of all outcome data were collected at baseline and follow up. Thirteen of 14 (93%) intervention group parents available at follow up completed the study exit questionnaire and noted that study outcome measures were acceptable. There was a mean difference in child total volume of PA of 27 cpm (95% CI -70, 123) and -3 cpm (95% CI -60, 54) for intervention and control group children, respectively. This was not statistically significant. Approximately 21% of dog walking time for parents and 39% of dog walking time for children was moderate-vigorous PA.ConclusionsThe acceptability of the CPET intervention and outcome measures was high. Using pet dogs as the agent of lifestyle change in PA interventions in children and their parents is both feasible and acceptable, but did not result in a significant increase in child PA in this exploratory trial.Trial registrationISRCTN85939423.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications.DesignCohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications.SettingSix research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.Data sources894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications.ResultsOf 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis.ConclusionsSubgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Dataset Information

Haemodynamic response to crystalloids or colloids in shock: an exploratory subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Haemodynamic response to crystalloids or colloids in shock: an exploratory subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure