Patients being treated for sepsis, a serious infection that can lower blood pressure, are often treated with fluids through an IV. Previous studies have shown that a positive fluid balance, or more fluids taken in than out, may be connected to problems with kidney and lung function. The BALANCE pilot trial enrolled 30 patients; 15 patients received fluid in a conservative and restrictive manner, and 15 patients were given the typical fluid care. Results showed that the conservative fluid approach did not decrease fluid balance for patients with sepsis. These findings suggest that future research on fluid treatment for sepsis will need to find ways to achieve bigger differences in the amount of fluid being received between the approaches being examined.
Rationale: The feasibility and clinical outcomes of conservative fluid management after sepsis resuscitation remain unknown.
Objectives: To evaluate the effect of a conservative fluid management protocol on fluid balance and intensive care unit (ICU)-free days among patients with sepsis.
Methods: In a single-center phase II/III randomized trial, we enrolled adults with suspected infection, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and either shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg or vasopressors) or respiratory insufficiency (mechanical ventilation or oxygen saturation <97% and fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care or a conservative fluid management protocol. The protocol restricted intravenous fluid administration during shock to treatment of oliguria or increasing vasopressor requirement. In the absence of shock, loop diuretic infusion targeted equal fluid input and output each study day. The primary outcomes were mean daily fluid balance (phase II) and ICU-free days (phase III).
Results: At the completion of phase II (n = 30), the difference in mean daily fluid balance between groups (-398 mL) was less than the prespecified threshold (-500 mL) and the trial was stopped. Patients in the conservative fluid management (n = 15) and usual care (n = 15) groups experienced similar cumulative fluid input (8450 mL vs 7049 mL; P = .90) of which only 14% was intravenous crystalloid or colloid. Loop diuretic infusion occurred more frequently in the conservative fluid management group (40% vs 0%; P = .02), and cumulative fluid output was 10 645 mL in the conservative fluid management group compared to 6286 mL in the usual care group (P = .39). Hemodynamic, respiratory, and renal function did not differ between the groups.
Conclusions: In this phase II trial, a conservative fluid management protocol did not decrease mean daily fluid balance by more than 500 mL among patients with sepsis.
Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02159079.
Keywords: acute kidney injury; intravenous fluid; sepsis.
Conflict of interest statement
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
All authors completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with the current work. W.H.S. reported serving on advisory boards for Venaxis, Inc., Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Cempra Pharmaceuticals, and as a consultant for Abbott Point-of-Care. T.W.R. reported serving on an advisory board for Avisa Pharma, LLC and as the Director of Medical Affairs for Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Manuscript Title: “Conservative Fluid Management After Sepsis Resuscitation: A Pilot Randomized Trial.”
Journal: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine