Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Feasibility of conservative fluid administration and deresuscitation compared with usual care in critical illness: the Role of Active Deresuscitation After Resuscitation-2 (RADAR-2) randomised clinical trial

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Anthony Rostron

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


Abstract

© 2021, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.Purpose: Fluid overload is common in critical illness and is associated with mortality. This study investigated the feasibility of a randomised trial comparing conservative fluid administration and deresuscitation (active removal of accumulated fluid using diuretics or ultrafiltration) with usual care in critical illness. Methods: Open-label, parallel-group, allocation-concealed randomised clinical feasibility trial. Mechanically ventilated adult patients expected to require critical care beyond the next calendar day were enrolled between 24 and 48 h following admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were randomised to either a 2-stage fluid strategy comprising conservative fluid administration and, if fluid overload was present, active deresuscitation, or usual care. The primary endpoint was fluid balance in the 24 h up to the start of study day 3. Secondary endpoints included cumulative fluid balance, mortality, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Results: One hundred and eighty patients were randomised. After withdrawal of 1 patient, 89 patients assigned to the intervention were compared with 90 patients assigned to the usual care group. The mean plus standard deviation (SD) 24-h fluid balance up to study day 3 was lower in the intervention group (− 840 ± 1746 mL) than the usual care group (+ 130 ± 1401 mL; P < 0.01). Cumulative fluid balance was lower in the intervention group at days 3 and 5. Overall, clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups, although the point estimate for 30-day mortality favoured the usual care group [intervention arm: 19 of 90 (21.6%) versus usual care: 14 of 89 (15.6%), P = 0.32]. Baseline imbalances between groups and lack of statistical power limit interpretation of clinical outcomes. Conclusions: A strategy of conservative fluid administration and active deresuscitation is feasible, reduces fluid balance compared with usual care, and may cause benefit or harm. In view of wide variations in contemporary clinical practice, large, adequately powered trials investigating the clinical effectiveness of conservative fluid strategies in critically ill patients are warranted.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Silversides JA, McMullan R, Emerson LM, Bradbury I, Bannard-Smith J, Szakmany T, Trinder J, Rostron AJ, Johnston P, Ferguson AJ, Boyle AJ, Blackwood B, Marshall JC, McAuley DF

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Intensive Care Medicine

Year: 2021

Pages: epub ahead of print

Online publication date: 16/12/2021

Acceptance date: 27/11/2021

ISSN (print): 0342-4642

ISSN (electronic): 1432-1238

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH

URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06596-8

DOI: 10.1007/s00134-021-06596-8


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Actions

Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication


Share