Search

Purpose To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC trial). Methods We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1-year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. Results Among 1554 randomised patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points (99% confidence interval (CI) -4.8 to 7.8). Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI -0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, -0.65 for EQ VAS (-5.40 to 4.08), and − 0.14 for Mini MoCA (-1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. Conclusions Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL and cognitive function at one year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.

Introduction Inappropriate fluid therapy may induce or worsen existing hyponatraemia with potentially life-threatening consequences. Nurses have an important role in assisting physicians in IV fluid prescribing. However, research is lacking in Denmark about nurses’ knowledge pertaining to IV fluid therapy and hyponatraemia. Methods An explorative cross-sectional survey was performed among Danish emergency department nurses in Spring 2019. Knowledge about IV fluid therapy was assessed for three common clinical scenarios, and multiple-choice questions were used to measure knowledge about hyponatraemia. Results 112 nurses responded to all scenario questions corresponding to 6.2% (112/1815) of the total population of nurses working at emergency departments in Denmark. In two of the three scenarios, a minority of nurses (8–10%) inappropriately selected hypotonic fluids. Nearly one third (31%) selected a hypotonic fluid for a patient with meningitis, which is against guideline recommendations. The study revealed limited knowledge about severe symptoms of hyponatraemia, patients at high risk, and hyperglycaemia-induced hyponatraemia. Conclusion In accordance with guideline recommendation, the majority of nurses did not select hypotonic fluids in three clinical scenarios commonly encountered in the emergency department. However, when setting up an educational program, further awareness is needed regarding symptoms of hyponatraemia, high-risk patients, and hyperglycaemia-induced hyponatraemia.

INTRODUCTION Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. METHODS CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. DISCUSSION The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.

BACKGROUND In patients with septic shock mortality is high, and survivors experience long-term physical, mental and social impairments. The ongoing Conservative vs Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial assesses the benefits and harms of a restrictive versus (vs) standard-care intravenous (IV) fluid therapy. The hypothesis is that IV fluid restriction improves patient-important long-term outcomes. AIM To assess the predefined patient-important long-term outcomes in patients randomised into the CLASSIC trial. METHODS In this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will assess all-cause mortality, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and cognitive function one year after randomisation in the two intervention groups. The 1-year mortality will be collected from electronic patient records or central national registries in most participating countries. We will contact survivors and assess EuroQol 5-Dimension, -5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol score. We will analyse mortality by logistic regression and use general linear models to assess HRQoL and cognitive function. DISCUSSION With this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will provide patient-important data on long-term survival, HRQoL and cognitive function of restrictive vs standard-care IV fluid therapy in patients with septic shock.