Dataset Information

Effects of saline or albumin fluid bolus in resuscitation: evidence from re-analysis of the FEAST trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fluid resuscitation is the recommended management of shock, but increased mortality in febrile African children in the FEAST trial. We hypothesised that fluid bolus-induced deaths in FEAST would be associated with detectable changes in cardiovascular, neurological, or respiratory function, oxygen carrying capacity, and blood biochemistry.

Methods

We developed composite scores for respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological function using vital sign data from the FEAST trial, and used them to compare participants from FEAST with those from four other cohorts and to identify differences between the bolus (n=2097) and no bolus (n=1044) groups of FEAST. We calculated the odds of adverse outcome for each ten-unit increase in baseline score using logistic regression for each cohort. Within FEAST participants, we also compared haemoglobin and plasma biochemistry between bolus and non-bolus patients, assessed the effects of these factors along with the vital sign scores on the contribution of bolus to mortality using Cox proportional hazard models, and used Bayesian clustering to identify subgroups that differed in response to bolus. The FEAST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN69856593.

Findings

Increasing respiratory (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CI 1·07-1·11), neurological (1·26, 1·21-1·31), and cardiovascular scores (1·09, 1·05-1·14) were associated with death in FEAST (all p<0·0001), and with adverse outcomes for specific scores in the four other cohorts. In FEAST, fluid bolus increased respiratory and neurological scores and decreased cardiovascular score at 1 h after commencement of the infusion. Fluid bolus recipients had mean 0·33 g/dL (95% CI 0·20-0·46) reduction in haemoglobin concentration after 8 h (p<0·0001), and at 24 h had a decrease of 1·41 mEq/L (95% CI 0·76-2·06; p=0·0002) in mean base excess and increase of 1·65 mmol/L (0·47-2·8; p=0·0070) in mean chloride, and a decrease of 0·96 mmol/L (0·45 to 1·47; p=0·0003) in bicarbonate. There were similar effects of fluid bolus in three patient subgroups, identified on the basis of their baseline characteristics. Hyperchloraemic acidosis and respiratory and neurological dysfunction induced by saline or albumin bolus explained the excess mortality due to bolus in Cox survival models.

Interpretation

In the resuscitation of febrile children, albumin and saline boluses can cause respiratory and neurological dysfunction, hyperchloraemic acidosis, and reduction in haemoglobin concentration. The findings support the notion that fluid resuscitation with unbuffered electrolyte solutions may cause harm and their use should be cautioned. The effects of lower volumes of buffered solutions should be evaluated further.

Funding

Medical Research Council, Department for International Development, National Institute for Health Research, Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre.

SUBMITTER: Levin M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6593355 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEarly rapid fluid resuscitation (boluses) in African children with severe febrile illnesses increases the 48-hour mortality by 3.3% compared with controls (no bolus). We explored the effect of boluses on 48-hour all-cause mortality by clinical presentation at enrolment, hemodynamic changes over the first hour, and on different modes of death, according to terminal clinical events. We hypothesize that boluses may cause excess deaths from neurological or respiratory events relating to fluid overload.MethodsPre-defined presentation syndromes (PS; severe acidosis or severe shock, respiratory, neurological) and predominant terminal clinical events (cardiovascular collapse, respiratory, neurological) were described by randomized arm (bolus versus control) in 3,141 severely ill febrile children with shock enrolled in the Fluid Expansion as Supportive Therapy (FEAST) trial. Landmark analyses were used to compare early mortality in treatment groups, conditional on changes in shock and hypoxia parameters. Competing risks methods were used to estimate cumulative incidence curves and sub-hazard ratios to compare treatment groups in terms of terminal clinical events.ResultsOf 2,396 out of 3,141 (76%) classifiable participants, 1,647 (69%) had a severe metabolic acidosis or severe shock PS, 625 (26%) had a respiratory PS and 976 (41%) had a neurological PS, either alone or in combination. Mortality was greatest among children fulfilling criteria for all three PS (28% bolus, 21% control) and lowest for lone respiratory (2% bolus, 5% control) or neurological (3% bolus, 0% control) presentations. Excess mortality in bolus arms versus control was apparent for all three PS, including all their component features. By one hour, shock had resolved (responders) more frequently in bolus versus control groups (43% versus 32%, P <0.001), but excess mortality with boluses was evident in responders (relative risk 1.98, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 4.17, P = 0.06) and 'non-responders' (relative risk 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.28, P = 0.001), with no evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.68). The major difference between bolus and control arms was the higher proportion of cardiogenic or shock terminal clinical events in bolus arms (n = 123; 4.6% versus 2.6%, P = 0.008) rather than respiratory (n = 61; 2.2% versus 1.3%, P = 0.09) or neurological (n = 63, 2.1% versus 1.8%, P = 0.6) terminal clinical events.ConclusionsExcess mortality from boluses occurred in all subgroups of children. Contrary to expectation, cardiovascular collapse rather than fluid overload appeared to contribute most to excess deaths with rapid fluid resuscitation. These results should prompt a re-evaluation of evidence on fluid resuscitation for shock and a re-appraisal of the rate, composition and volume of resuscitation fluids.Trial registrationISRCTN69856593.

Project description:Background/aimsDespite evidence that preferential use of balanced/buffered fluids may improve outcomes compared with chloride-rich 0.9% saline, saline remains the most commonly used fluid for children with septic shock. We aim to determine if resuscitation with balanced/buffered fluids as part of usual care will improve outcomes, in part through reduced kidney injury and without an increase in adverse effects, compared to 0.9% saline for children with septic shock.MethodsThe Pragmatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced versus Normal Saline Fluid in Sepsis (PRoMPT BOLUS) study is an international, open-label pragmatic interventional trial being conducted at > 40 sites in the USA, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand starting on August 25, 2020, and continuing for 5 years. Children > 6 months to < 18 years treated for suspected septic shock with abnormal perfusion in an emergency department will be randomized to receive either balanced/buffered crystalloids (intervention) or 0.9% saline (control) for initial resuscitation and maintenance fluids for up to 48 h. Eligible patients are enrolled and randomized using serially numbered, opaque envelopes concurrent with clinical care. Given the life-threatening nature of septic shock and narrow therapeutic window to start fluid resuscitation, patients may be enrolled under "exception from informed consent" in the USA or "deferred consent" in Canada and Australia/New Zealand. Other than fluid type, all decisions about timing, volume, and rate of fluid administration remain at the discretion of the treating clinicians. For pragmatic reasons, clinicians will not be blinded to study fluid type. Anticipated enrollment is 8800 patients. The primary outcome will be major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE30), a composite of death, renal replacement therapy, and persistent kidney dysfunction. Additional effectiveness, safety, and biologic outcomes will also be analyzed.DiscussionPRoMPT BOLUS will provide high-quality evidence for the comparative effectiveness of buffered/balanced crystalloids versus 0.9% saline for the initial fluid management of children with suspected septic shock in emergency settings.Trial registrationPRoMPT BOLUS was first registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04102371 ) on September 25, 2019. Enrollment started on August 25, 2020.

Project description:BackgroundResuscitation with crystalloid fluid is a cornerstone of pediatric septic shock treatment. However, the optimal type of crystalloid fluid is unknown. We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized trial to compare balanced (lactated Ringer's [LR]) with 0.9% normal saline (NS) fluid resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock.MethodsOpen-label pragmatic randomized controlled trial at a single academic children's hospital from January to August 2018. Eligible patients were >6 months to <18 years old who were treated in the emergency department for suspected septic shock, operationalized as blood culture, parenteral antibiotics, and fluid resuscitation for abnormal perfusion. Screening, enrollment, and randomization were carried out by the clinical team as part of routine care. Patients were randomized to receive either LR or NS for up to 48 hours following randomization. Other than fluid type, all treatment decisions were at the clinical team's discretion. Feasibility outcomes included proportion of eligible patients enrolled, acceptability of enrollment via the U.S. federal exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations, and adherence to randomized study fluid administration.ResultsOf 59 eligible patients, 50 (85%) were enrolled and randomized. Twenty-four were randomized to LR and 26 to NS. Only one (2%) of 44 patients enrolled using EFIC withdrew before study completion. Total median (interquartile range [IQR]) crystalloid fluid volume received during the intervention window was 107 (60 to 155) mL/kg and 98 (63 to 128) mL/kg in the LR and NS arms, respectively (p = 0.50). Patients randomized to LR received a median (IQR) of only 20% (13 to 32) of all study fluid as NS compared to 99% (64% to 100%) of study fluid as NS in the NS arm (absolute difference = 79%, 95% CI = 48% to 85%).ConclusionsA pragmatic study design proved feasible to study comparative effectiveness of LR versus NS fluid resuscitation for pediatric septic shock.

Project description:BackgroundIntraoperative and postoperative management of cardiac surgery patients is complex, involving the application of differential vasopressors and volume therapy. It has been shown that a positive fluid balance has a major impact on postoperative outcome. Today, the advantages and disadvantages of buffered crystalloid solutes are a topic of controversy, with no consensus being reached so far. The use of hypertonic saline (HS) has shown promising results with respect to lower total fluid balance and postoperative weight gain in critically ill patients in preliminary studies. However, collection of more data on HS in critically ill patients seems warranted. This preliminary study aims to investigate whether fluid resuscitation using HS in patients following cardiac surgery results in less total fluid volume being administered.MethodsIn a prospective double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial, we aim to recruit 96 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery for ischaemic and/or valvular heart disease. After postoperative admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), patients will be randomly assigned to receive 5 ml/kg ideal body weight HS (7.3% NaCl) or normal saline (NS, 0.9% NaCl) infused within 60 min. Blood and urine samples will be collected preoperatively and postoperatively up to day 6 to assess changes in renal, cardiac, inflammatory, acid-base, and electrolyte parameters. Additionally, we will perform renal ultrasonography studies to assess renal blood flow before, during, and after infusion, and we will measure total body water using preoperative and postoperative body composition analysis (bioimpedance). Patients will be followed up for 90 days.DiscussionThe key objective of this study is to assess the cumulative amount of fluid administered in the intervention (HS) group versus control (NS) group during the ICU stay. In this preliminary, prospective, randomised controlled clinical trial we will test the hypothesis that use of HS results in less total fluids infused and less postoperative weight gain when compared to the standard of intensive care in cardiac surgery patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03280745 . Registered on 12 September 2017.

Project description:BackgroundCritically ill patients frequently develop acute kidney injury that necessitates renal replacement therapy (RRT). At some centers, critically ill patients who are hemodynamically unstable and require RRT are treated with slow low-efficiency dialysis (SLED). Unfortunately, hypotension is a frequent complication that occurs during SLED treatments and may limit the recovery of kidney function. Hypotension may also limit the amount of fluid that can be removed by ultrafiltration with SLED. Fluid overload can be exacerbated as a consequence, and fluid overload is associated with increased mortality.Occasionally, intravenous albumin fluid is given to prevent or treat low blood pressure during SLED. The intent of doing so is to increase the colloid oncotic pressure in the circulation to draw in extravascular fluid, increase the blood pressure, and enable more aggressive fluid removal with ultrafiltration. Nonetheless, there is little evidence to support this practice and theoretical reasons why it may not be especially effective at augmenting fluid removal in critically ill patients. At the same time, albumin fluid is expensive.As such, we present a protocol for a study to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the use of albumin fluid versus saline in critically ill patients receiving SLED.MethodsThis study is a single-center, double-blind, and randomized controlled pilot trial with two parallel arms. It involves randomly assigning patients receiving SLED treatment in the ICU to receive either albumin (25%) boluses or normal saline fluid boluses (placebo) to prevent and treat low blood pressure.DiscussionThe results of this pilot trial will help with planning a larger trial comparing the efficacy of the interventions in achieving fluid removal in critically ill patients with AKI on SLED. They will establish whether enough participants would participate in a larger study and accept the study procedures.Trial registrationThis trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03665311, registered on September 11, 2018.