Effects of IV fluid restriction according to site‐specific intensity of standard fluid treatment—protocol

Author:

Sivapalan Praleene12ORCID,Kaas‐Hansen Benjamin Skov123ORCID,Meyhoff Tine Sylvest124ORCID,Hjortrup Peter Buhl25ORCID,Kjær Maj‐Brit N.12ORCID,Laake Jon Henrik26ORCID,Cronhjort Maria27ORCID,Jakob Stephan M.28ORCID,Cecconi Maurizio910ORCID,Nalos Marek211ORCID,Ostermann Marlies212ORCID,Malbrain Manu L. N. G.213ORCID,Møller Morten Hylander1214ORCID,Perner Anders1214ORCID,Granholm Anders12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Intensive Care Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark

2. Collaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC) Copenhagen Denmark

3. Department of Public Health, Section of Biostatistics University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark

4. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Lillebælt Hospital Kolding Denmark

5. Department of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Heart Center Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark

6. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care Oslo University Hospital Oslo Norway

7. Department of Clinical Sciences Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden

8. University of Bern Bern Switzerland

9. Biomedical Sciences Department Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele Italy

10. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care IRCCS‐Humanitas Research Hospital Milan Italy

11. Department of Anaesthesiology, Perioperative and Intensive Care Medicine, Masaryk Hospital J.E. Purkinje University Usti nad Labem Czech Republic

12. Department of Intensive Care Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital London UK

13. First Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy Medical University of Lublin Lublin Poland

14. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Science University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundVariation in usual practice in fluid trials assessing lower versus higher volumes may affect overall comparisons. To address this, we will evaluate the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity in the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care trial. This will reflect the effects of differences in site‐specific intensities of standard fluid treatment due to local practice preferences while considering participant characteristics.MethodsWe will assess the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity across one primary (all‐cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes (serious adverse events or reactions, days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital) after 90 days. We will classify sites based on the site‐specific intensity of standard fluid treatment, defined as the mean differences in observed versus predicted intravenous fluid volumes in the first 24 h in the standard‐fluid group while accounting for differences in participant characteristics. Predictions will be made using a machine learning model including 22 baseline predictors using the extreme gradient boosting algorithm. Subsequently, sites will be grouped into fluid treatment intensity subgroups containing at least 100 participants each. Subgroups differences will be assessed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models with weakly informative priors. We will present the full posterior distributions of relative (risk ratios and ratios of means) and absolute differences (risk differences and mean differences) in each subgroup.DiscussionThis study will provide data on the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity while accounting for patient characteristics in critically ill adult patients with septic shock.RegistrationsThe European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018‐000404‐42, ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03668236.

Funder

Novo Nordisk Fonden

Læge Sofus Carl Emil Friis og Hustru Olga Doris Friis' Legat

Rigshospitalet

Grosserer Jakob Ehrenreich og Hustru Grete Ehrenreichs Fond

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3