A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Conservative Fluid Management Strategy Compared With Usual Care in Participants After Cardiac Surgery: The Fluids After Bypass Study

There is little evidence to guide fluid administration to patients admitted to the ICU following cardiac surgery. This study aimed to determine if a protocolized strategy known to reduce fluid administration when compared with usual care reduced ICU length of stay following cardiac surgery. Prospect...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Critical care medicine 2021-03, Vol.49 (3), p.449-461
Hauptverfasser: Parke, Rachael L., Gilder, Eileen, Gillham, Michael J., Walker, Laurence J. C., Bailey, Michael J., McGuinness, Shay P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 461
container_issue 3
container_start_page 449
container_title Critical care medicine
container_volume 49
creator Parke, Rachael L.
Gilder, Eileen
Gillham, Michael J.
Walker, Laurence J. C.
Bailey, Michael J.
McGuinness, Shay P.
description There is little evidence to guide fluid administration to patients admitted to the ICU following cardiac surgery. This study aimed to determine if a protocolized strategy known to reduce fluid administration when compared with usual care reduced ICU length of stay following cardiac surgery. Prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Five cardiac surgical centers in New Zealand conducted from November 2016 to December 2018 with final follow-up completed in July 2019. Seven-hundred fifteen patients undergoing cardiac surgery; 358 intervention and 357 usual care. Randomization to protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid or usual care fluid administration until desedation or up to 24 hours. Primary outcome was length of stay in ICU. Organ dysfunction, mortality, process of care measures, patient-reported quality of life, and disability-free survival were collected up to day 180. Overall 666 of 715 (93.1%) received at least one fluid bolus. Patients in the intervention group received less bolus fluid (median [interquartile range], 1,000 mL [250-2,000 mL] vs 1,500 mL [500-2,500 mL]; p < 0.0001) and had a lower overall fluid balance (median [interquartile range], 319 mL [-284 to 1,274 mL] vs 673 mL [38-1,641 mL]; p < 0.0001) in the intervention period. There was no difference in ICU length of stay between the two groups (27.9 hr [21.8-53.5 hr] vs 25.6 hr [21.9-64.6 hr]; p = 0.95). There were no differences seen in development of organ dysfunction, quality of life, or disability-free survival at any time points. Hospital mortality was higher in the intervention group (4% vs 1.4%; p = 0.04). A protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid when compared with usual care until desedation or up to 24 hours reduced the amount of fluid administered but did not reduce the length of stay in ICU.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004883
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2483817142</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2483817142</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3526-22066621a5ede48d49db96c28bdebb39608a5e86103c75c0350e305ae83c7dcd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUdtu1DAQtRCoXUr_ACE_8tAU35JNeFsiCki7atVuxWM0iWd3Dc6lttMqfB2fhpduAeEXe2bOOTPjQ8hrzs45K-bvynJ1zv45Ks_lMzLjqWQJE4V8TmaMFSyRqpDH5KX33xjjKp3LI3IsZcpFocSM_FzQ1WiDabAL6M7o5YBdsoQa7Rm9hk73rfmBmpZ9F1xvbXyunQFL-w2Ffdaju4dg7pFe2NFouoIOtthGNXoTHATcThHWDuAi9asJO3rrx8gvY4Kajl6Bi83NAF3wdLGJM-xL2kBDb0a3RTe9p-vdQf0J8WEawPvYYNTTK_JiA9bj6eE-IbcXH9fl52R5-elLuVgmjUxFlgjBsiwTHFLUqHKtCl0XWSPyWmNdyyJjeSzlGWeymacNkylDyVLAPMa60fKEvH3UHVx_N6IPVWt8g9ZCh_3oK6FymfM5VyJC1SO0cb33DjfV4EwLbqo4q_beVdG76n_vIu3NocNYt6j_kJ7M-qv70Nv4Df67HR_QVTsEG3a_9aRQcVUm4hYxSvapTP4CeKCl1A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2483817142</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Conservative Fluid Management Strategy Compared With Usual Care in Participants After Cardiac Surgery: The Fluids After Bypass Study</title><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Parke, Rachael L. ; Gilder, Eileen ; Gillham, Michael J. ; Walker, Laurence J. C. ; Bailey, Michael J. ; McGuinness, Shay P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Parke, Rachael L. ; Gilder, Eileen ; Gillham, Michael J. ; Walker, Laurence J. C. ; Bailey, Michael J. ; McGuinness, Shay P. ; Fluids After Bypass Study Investigators</creatorcontrib><description>There is little evidence to guide fluid administration to patients admitted to the ICU following cardiac surgery. This study aimed to determine if a protocolized strategy known to reduce fluid administration when compared with usual care reduced ICU length of stay following cardiac surgery. Prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Five cardiac surgical centers in New Zealand conducted from November 2016 to December 2018 with final follow-up completed in July 2019. Seven-hundred fifteen patients undergoing cardiac surgery; 358 intervention and 357 usual care. Randomization to protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid or usual care fluid administration until desedation or up to 24 hours. Primary outcome was length of stay in ICU. Organ dysfunction, mortality, process of care measures, patient-reported quality of life, and disability-free survival were collected up to day 180. Overall 666 of 715 (93.1%) received at least one fluid bolus. Patients in the intervention group received less bolus fluid (median [interquartile range], 1,000 mL [250-2,000 mL] vs 1,500 mL [500-2,500 mL]; p &lt; 0.0001) and had a lower overall fluid balance (median [interquartile range], 319 mL [-284 to 1,274 mL] vs 673 mL [38-1,641 mL]; p &lt; 0.0001) in the intervention period. There was no difference in ICU length of stay between the two groups (27.9 hr [21.8-53.5 hr] vs 25.6 hr [21.9-64.6 hr]; p = 0.95). There were no differences seen in development of organ dysfunction, quality of life, or disability-free survival at any time points. Hospital mortality was higher in the intervention group (4% vs 1.4%; p = 0.04). A protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid when compared with usual care until desedation or up to 24 hours reduced the amount of fluid administered but did not reduce the length of stay in ICU.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-3493</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-0293</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004883</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33512942</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><ispartof>Critical care medicine, 2021-03, Vol.49 (3), p.449-461</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3526-22066621a5ede48d49db96c28bdebb39608a5e86103c75c0350e305ae83c7dcd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3526-22066621a5ede48d49db96c28bdebb39608a5e86103c75c0350e305ae83c7dcd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33512942$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parke, Rachael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilder, Eileen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillham, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Laurence J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGuinness, Shay P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fluids After Bypass Study Investigators</creatorcontrib><title>A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Conservative Fluid Management Strategy Compared With Usual Care in Participants After Cardiac Surgery: The Fluids After Bypass Study</title><title>Critical care medicine</title><addtitle>Crit Care Med</addtitle><description>There is little evidence to guide fluid administration to patients admitted to the ICU following cardiac surgery. This study aimed to determine if a protocolized strategy known to reduce fluid administration when compared with usual care reduced ICU length of stay following cardiac surgery. Prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Five cardiac surgical centers in New Zealand conducted from November 2016 to December 2018 with final follow-up completed in July 2019. Seven-hundred fifteen patients undergoing cardiac surgery; 358 intervention and 357 usual care. Randomization to protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid or usual care fluid administration until desedation or up to 24 hours. Primary outcome was length of stay in ICU. Organ dysfunction, mortality, process of care measures, patient-reported quality of life, and disability-free survival were collected up to day 180. Overall 666 of 715 (93.1%) received at least one fluid bolus. Patients in the intervention group received less bolus fluid (median [interquartile range], 1,000 mL [250-2,000 mL] vs 1,500 mL [500-2,500 mL]; p &lt; 0.0001) and had a lower overall fluid balance (median [interquartile range], 319 mL [-284 to 1,274 mL] vs 673 mL [38-1,641 mL]; p &lt; 0.0001) in the intervention period. There was no difference in ICU length of stay between the two groups (27.9 hr [21.8-53.5 hr] vs 25.6 hr [21.9-64.6 hr]; p = 0.95). There were no differences seen in development of organ dysfunction, quality of life, or disability-free survival at any time points. Hospital mortality was higher in the intervention group (4% vs 1.4%; p = 0.04). A protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid when compared with usual care until desedation or up to 24 hours reduced the amount of fluid administered but did not reduce the length of stay in ICU.</description><issn>0090-3493</issn><issn>1530-0293</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdUdtu1DAQtRCoXUr_ACE_8tAU35JNeFsiCki7atVuxWM0iWd3Dc6lttMqfB2fhpduAeEXe2bOOTPjQ8hrzs45K-bvynJ1zv45Ks_lMzLjqWQJE4V8TmaMFSyRqpDH5KX33xjjKp3LI3IsZcpFocSM_FzQ1WiDabAL6M7o5YBdsoQa7Rm9hk73rfmBmpZ9F1xvbXyunQFL-w2Ffdaju4dg7pFe2NFouoIOtthGNXoTHATcThHWDuAi9asJO3rrx8gvY4Kajl6Bi83NAF3wdLGJM-xL2kBDb0a3RTe9p-vdQf0J8WEawPvYYNTTK_JiA9bj6eE-IbcXH9fl52R5-elLuVgmjUxFlgjBsiwTHFLUqHKtCl0XWSPyWmNdyyJjeSzlGWeymacNkylDyVLAPMa60fKEvH3UHVx_N6IPVWt8g9ZCh_3oK6FymfM5VyJC1SO0cb33DjfV4EwLbqo4q_beVdG76n_vIu3NocNYt6j_kJ7M-qv70Nv4Df67HR_QVTsEG3a_9aRQcVUm4hYxSvapTP4CeKCl1A</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Parke, Rachael L.</creator><creator>Gilder, Eileen</creator><creator>Gillham, Michael J.</creator><creator>Walker, Laurence J. C.</creator><creator>Bailey, Michael J.</creator><creator>McGuinness, Shay P.</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Conservative Fluid Management Strategy Compared With Usual Care in Participants After Cardiac Surgery: The Fluids After Bypass Study</title><author>Parke, Rachael L. ; Gilder, Eileen ; Gillham, Michael J. ; Walker, Laurence J. C. ; Bailey, Michael J. ; McGuinness, Shay P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3526-22066621a5ede48d49db96c28bdebb39608a5e86103c75c0350e305ae83c7dcd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parke, Rachael L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gilder, Eileen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillham, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walker, Laurence J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGuinness, Shay P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fluids After Bypass Study Investigators</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Critical care medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parke, Rachael L.</au><au>Gilder, Eileen</au><au>Gillham, Michael J.</au><au>Walker, Laurence J. C.</au><au>Bailey, Michael J.</au><au>McGuinness, Shay P.</au><aucorp>Fluids After Bypass Study Investigators</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Conservative Fluid Management Strategy Compared With Usual Care in Participants After Cardiac Surgery: The Fluids After Bypass Study</atitle><jtitle>Critical care medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Crit Care Med</addtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>449</spage><epage>461</epage><pages>449-461</pages><issn>0090-3493</issn><eissn>1530-0293</eissn><abstract>There is little evidence to guide fluid administration to patients admitted to the ICU following cardiac surgery. This study aimed to determine if a protocolized strategy known to reduce fluid administration when compared with usual care reduced ICU length of stay following cardiac surgery. Prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Five cardiac surgical centers in New Zealand conducted from November 2016 to December 2018 with final follow-up completed in July 2019. Seven-hundred fifteen patients undergoing cardiac surgery; 358 intervention and 357 usual care. Randomization to protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid or usual care fluid administration until desedation or up to 24 hours. Primary outcome was length of stay in ICU. Organ dysfunction, mortality, process of care measures, patient-reported quality of life, and disability-free survival were collected up to day 180. Overall 666 of 715 (93.1%) received at least one fluid bolus. Patients in the intervention group received less bolus fluid (median [interquartile range], 1,000 mL [250-2,000 mL] vs 1,500 mL [500-2,500 mL]; p &lt; 0.0001) and had a lower overall fluid balance (median [interquartile range], 319 mL [-284 to 1,274 mL] vs 673 mL [38-1,641 mL]; p &lt; 0.0001) in the intervention period. There was no difference in ICU length of stay between the two groups (27.9 hr [21.8-53.5 hr] vs 25.6 hr [21.9-64.6 hr]; p = 0.95). There were no differences seen in development of organ dysfunction, quality of life, or disability-free survival at any time points. Hospital mortality was higher in the intervention group (4% vs 1.4%; p = 0.04). A protocol-guided strategy utilizing stroke volume variation to guide administration of bolus fluid when compared with usual care until desedation or up to 24 hours reduced the amount of fluid administered but did not reduce the length of stay in ICU.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>33512942</pmid><doi>10.1097/CCM.0000000000004883</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-3493
ispartof Critical care medicine, 2021-03, Vol.49 (3), p.449-461
issn 0090-3493
1530-0293
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2483817142
source Journals@Ovid Complete
title A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Conservative Fluid Management Strategy Compared With Usual Care in Participants After Cardiac Surgery: The Fluids After Bypass Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T16%3A37%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Multicenter,%20Open-Label,%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial%20of%20a%20Conservative%20Fluid%20Management%20Strategy%20Compared%20With%20Usual%20Care%20in%20Participants%20After%20Cardiac%20Surgery:%20The%20Fluids%20After%20Bypass%20Study&rft.jtitle=Critical%20care%20medicine&rft.au=Parke,%20Rachael%20L.&rft.aucorp=Fluids%20After%20Bypass%20Study%20Investigators&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=449&rft.epage=461&rft.pages=449-461&rft.issn=0090-3493&rft.eissn=1530-0293&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004883&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2483817142%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2483817142&rft_id=info:pmid/33512942&rfr_iscdi=true