The SQUEEZE pilot trial: a trial to determine whether septic shock reversal is quicker in pediatric patients randomized to an early goal directed fluid-sparing strategy vs. usual care

Author:

Parker Melissa J.ORCID,Choong Karen,Fox-Robichaud Alison,Liaw Patricia C.,Thabane Lehana

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe overall objective of our research is to determine in children with septic shock whether use of a fluid-sparing strategy results in improved clinical outcomes without an increased risk of adverse events compared to usual care. The specific objective of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the feasibility of a definitive multicenter trial to answer our research question.DesignPragmatic, 2-arm, parallel group, open label, prospective pilot randomized controlled trial including a nested biosample-based translational study.SettingPediatric tertiary care centrePatientsChildren aged 29 days to <18 years of age presenting to the Emergency Department or admitted to an in-patient ward (including the PICU) with suspected or confirmed septic shock and a need for ongoing resuscitation.InterventionsFluid-sparing vs. usual care resuscitation strategy continued until shock reversal. The fluid-sparing intervention comprised instructions to restrict fluid bolus therapy in conjunction with early initiation and/or preferential use of vasoactive medication support as a strategy to spare fluid while targeting the hemodynamic goals specified in the American College of Critical Care Medicine Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. The usual care strategy did not limit use of fluid bolus therapy.Measurements and Main Results53 were randomized to usual care (n=27) or fluid-sparing (n=26). Fifty-one participants were available for primary outcome analysis. Primary feasibility outcomes related to participant enrolment and protocol adherence. Enrolment rate was 1.8 (51/29); 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-2.3 participants/month. Study procedures were implemented in 49/51 (96.1%), 95% CI: 86.5-99.5% participants within 1 hour of randomization in a median (quartile range [IQR]) of 8 (5, 15) minutes. The protocol required use of an exception to consent process and consent for ongoing participation was 48/51 (94.1%), 95% CI: 83.8-98.8%. There were no serious adverse events.ConclusionsWe concluded the large multicenter SQUEEZE Trial feasible to conduct. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT01973907]

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

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