Search

Introduction: Intravenous fluid therapy is the most common intervention in critically ill children. There is an increasing body of evidence questioning the safety of high-volume intravenous fluid administration in these patients. To date, the optimal fluid management strategy remains unclear. We aimed to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing a restrictive with a standard (liberal) fluid management strategy in critically ill children., Methods and Analysis: Multicentre, binational pilot, randomised, controlled, open-label, pragmatic trial. Patients <18 years admitted to paediatric intensive care unit and mechanically ventilated at the time of screening are eligible. Patients with tumour lysis syndrome, diabetic ketoacidosis or postorgan transplant are excluded., Interventions: 1:1 random assignment of 154 individual patients into two groups-restrictive versus standard, liberal, fluid strategy-stratified by primary diagnosis (cardiac/non-cardiac). The intervention consists of a restrictive fluid bundle, including lower maintenance fluid allowance, limiting fluid boluses, reducing volumes of drug delivery and initiating diuretics or peritoneal dialysis earlier. The intervention is applied for 48 hours postrandomisation or until discharge (whichever is earlier)., Endpoints: The number of patients recruited per month and proportion of recruited to eligible patients are feasibility endpoints. New-onset acute kidney injury and the incidence of clinically relevant central venous thrombosis are safety endpoints. Fluid balance at 48 hours after randomisation is the efficacy endpoint. Survival free of paediatric intensive care censored at 28 days is the clinical endpoint., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was gained from the Children's Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/21/QCHQ/77514, date: 1 September 2021), and University of Zurich (2021-02447, date: 17 March 2023). The trial is registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001311842). Open-access publication in high impact peer-reviewed journals will be sought. Modern information dissemination strategies will also be used including social media to disseminate the outcomes of the study., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12621001311842., Protocol Version/date: V5/23 May 2023., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) frequently fail during therapy administration, resulting in infusates pooling in the surrounding tissue. These extravasation injuries can cause significant pain, tissue destruction and scarring. ivWatch is a biosensor that uses visible and near-infrared light to measure tissue changes surrounding the PIVC and alert clinicians when extravasation may occur. The effectiveness of ivWatch, in comparison to clinical observation, in decreasing injury severity is unknown. The present study aims to investigate whether using ivWatch may potentially detect injury earlier and decrease the severity of PIVC extravasation injuries., Methods and Analysis: A single centre, parallel group, open-label superiority randomised controlled trial comparing (a) standard care (clinical observation) to (b) ivWatch monitoring in addition to standard care, to decrease the severity of extravasation injuries. 200 children with PIVCs inserted in the distal half of the limb, receiving intermediate-risk to high-risk infusates for ≥24 hours, will be consecutively recruited at a paediatric intensive care unit in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome is extravasation severity, measured by the Cincinnati Children's Extravasation Harm Scale. Secondary outcomes include severity assessed with three-dimensional camera imaging, extravasation volume, treatment sequelae, the number of PIVCs used and dwell time, quality of life and healthcare costs. The between treatment difference in extravasation severity will be compared using ordinal logistic regression, with the treatment group included as the main effect, and reported with corresponding 95% CIs. Estimates of value will be presented as net monetary benefits and cost per reduction in extravasation injury severity, both presented with corresponding 95% credible intervals., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received approval from the Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (reference number: HREC/20/QCHQ/60867) and the Griffith University HREC (reference number: 2020/310) and will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000317998., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CAM reports travel and accommodation expenses from Roche and Smith & Nephew (unrelated to the current project), and a research grant provided to the Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burns Centre from Abigo Medical AB (unrelated to the current project). JAS reports investigator-initiated research grants provided to Griffith University from BD-Bard (unrelated to the current project). TK reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from 3M Medical, Angiodynamics, Baxter, BD-Bard and Medical Specialties Australia (unrelated to the current project). JB reports investigator-initiated research grants provided to Griffith University from Becton Dickinson and Navi Technologies (unrelated to current project). AJU reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from 3M Medical, Becton Dickinson, Cardinal Health and Navi Technologies (unrelated to the current project). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)