Dataset Information

PRagMatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced vs nOrmaL Saline FlUid in Sepsis: study protocol for the PRoMPT BOLUS randomized interventional trial

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Despite 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.

Methods

The 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.

Discussion

PRoMPT 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 registration

PRoMPT BOLUS was first registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04102371) on September 25, 2019. Enrollment started on August 25, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05717-4.

SUBMITTER: Weiss S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572061 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Intravenous fluids are used for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Clinical and laboratory studies have questioned whether specific fluid types result in improved outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury. To determine the effect of a balanced solution vs saline solution (0.9% sodium chloride) on 90-day survival in critically ill patients. Double-blind, factorial, randomized clinical trial conducted at 75 ICUs in Brazil. Patients who were admitted to the ICU with at least 1 risk factor for worse outcomes, who required at least 1 fluid expansion, and who were expected to remain in the ICU for more than 24 hours were randomized between May 29, 2017, and March 2, 2020; follow-up concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different fluid types (a balanced solution vs saline solution reported in this article) and 2 different infusion rates (reported separately). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a balanced solution (n = 5522) or 0.9% saline solution (n = 5530) for all intravenous fluids. The primary outcome was 90-day survival. Among 11 052 patients who were randomized, 10 520 (95.2%) were available for the analysis (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 17] years; 44.2% were women). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions (fluid type and infusion speed; P = .98). Planned surgical admissions represented 48.4% of all patients. Of all the patients, 60.6% had hypotension or vasopressor use and 44.3% required mechanical ventilation at enrollment. Patients in both groups received a median of 1.5 L of fluid during the first day after enrollment. By day 90, 1381 of 5230 patients (26.4%) assigned to a balanced solution died vs 1439 of 5290 patients (27.2%) assigned to saline solution (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.05]; P = .47). There were no unexpected treatment-related severe adverse events in either group. Among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, use of a balanced solution compared with 0.9% saline solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. The findings do not support the use of this balanced solution. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Project description:BackgroundFluid 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsIncreasing 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.InterpretationIn 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.FundingMedical Research Council, Department for International Development, National Institute for Health Research, Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre.

Project description:ObjectivesNormal saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) are the most common crystalloids used for fluid therapy. Despite evidence of possible harm associated with NS (eg, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, impaired kidney function and death), few large multi-centre randomised trials have evaluated the effect of these fluids on clinically important outcomes. We conducted a pilot trial to explore the feasibility of a large trial powered for clinically important outcomes.DesignFLUID was a pragmatic pilot cluster randomised cross-over trial.SettingFour hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalised adult and paediatric patients with an incident admission to the hospital over the course of each study period.InterventionsA hospital wide policy/strategy which stocked either NS or RL throughout the hospital for 12 weeks before crossing over to the alternate fluid for the subsequent 12 weeks.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary feasibility outcome was study fluid protocol adherence. Secondary feasibility outcomes included time to Research Ethics Board (REB) approval and trial initiation. Primary (composite of death or re-admission to hospital in first 90 days of index hospitalisation) and secondary clinical outcomes were analysed descriptively.ResultsAmong 24 905 included patients, mean age 59.1 (SD 20.5); 13 977 (56.1%) were female and 21 150 (85.0%) had medical or surgical admitting diagnoses. Overall, 96 821 L were administered in the NS arm, and 78 348 L in the RL arm. Study fluid adherence to NS and RL was 93.7% (site range: 91.6%-98.0%) and 79.8% (site range: 72.5%-83.9%), respectively. Time to REB approval ranged from 2 to 48 days and readiness for trial initiation from 51 to 331 days. 5544 (22.3%) patients died or required hospital re-admission in the first 90 days.ConclusionsThe future large trial is feasible. Anticipating and addressing logistical challenges during the planning stages will be imperative.Trial registration numberNCT02721485.

Project description:BackgroundPrior studies in critically ill patients suggest the supra-physiologic chloride concentration of 0.9% ("normal") saline may be associated with higher risk of renal failure and death compared to physiologically balanced crystalloids. However, the comparative effects of 0.9% saline and balanced fluids are largely unexamined among patients outside the intensive care unit, who represent the vast majority of patients treated with intravenous fluids.Methods/designThis study, entitled Saline Against Lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte in the Emergency Department (SALT-ED), is a pragmatic, cluster, multiple-crossover trial at a single institution evaluating clinical outcomes of adults treated with 0.9% saline versus balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid resuscitation in the emergency department. All adults treated in the study emergency department receiving at least 500 mL of isotonic crystalloid solution during usual clinical care and subsequently hospitalized outside the intensive care unit are included. Treatment allocation of 0.9% saline versus balanced crystalloids is assigned by calendar month, with study patients treated during the same month assigned to the same fluid type. The first month (January 2016) was randomly assigned to balanced crystalloids, with each subsequent month alternating between 0.9% saline and balanced crystalloids. For balanced crystalloid treatment, clinicians can choose either Lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte A©. The study period is set at 16 months, which will result in an anticipated estimated sample size of 15,000 patients. The primary outcome is hospital-free days to day 28, defined as the number of days alive and out of the hospital from the index emergency department visit until 28 days later. Major secondary outcomes include proportion of patients who develop acute kidney injury by creatinine measurements; major adverse kidney events by hospital discharge or day 30 (MAKE30), which is a composite outcome of death, new renal replacement therapy, and persistent creatinine elevation >200% of baseline; and in-hospital mortality.DiscussionThis ongoing pragmatic trial will provide the most comprehensive evaluation to date of clinical outcomes associated with 0.9% saline compared to physiologically balanced fluids in patients outside the intensive care unit.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02614040 . Registered on 18 November 2015.