Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension

Authors

Nathan I Shapiro
Ivor S Douglas
Roy G Brower
Samuel M Brown
Matthew C Exline
Adit A Ginde
Michelle N Gong
Colin K Grissom
Douglas Hayden
Catherine L Hough
Weixing Huang
Theodore J Iwashyna
Alan E Jones
Akram Khan
Poying Lai
Kathleen D Liu
Chadwick D Miller
Katherine Oldmixon
Pauline K Park
Todd W Rice
Nancy Ringwood
Matthew W Semler
Jay S Steingrub
Daniel Talmor
B Taylor Thompson
Donald M Yealy
Wesley H Self

Publication Date

2-9-2023

Journal

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.

METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028).

Keywords

Humans, Fluid Therapy, Sepsis, Hypotension, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Vasoconstrictor Agents

Comments

Supplementary Materials

PMID: 36688507