Evidence Hub

REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1)

Raman S, Rahiman S, Kennedy M, Mattke A, Venugopal P, McBride C, Tu Q, Zapf F et al.

BMJ open, 2023

154 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Intravenous fluid therapy is the most common intervention in critically ill children. There is an increasing body of evidence questioning the safety of high-volume intravenous fluid administration in these patients. To date, the optimal fluid management strategy remains unclear. We aimed to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing a restrictive with a standard (liberal) fluid management strategy in critically ill children.

Methods and analysis: Multicentre, binational pilot, randomised, controlled, open-label, pragmatic trial. Patients <18 years admitted to paediatric intensive care unit and mechanically ventilated at the time of screening are eligible. Patients with tumour lysis syndrome, diabetic ketoacidosis or postorgan transplant are excluded.

Interventions: 1:1 random assignment of 154 individual patients into two groups-restrictive versus standard, liberal, fluid strategy-stratified by primary diagnosis (cardiac/non-cardiac). The intervention consists of a restrictive fluid bundle, including lower maintenance fluid allowance, limiting fluid boluses, reducing volumes of drug delivery and initiating diuretics or peritoneal dialysis earlier. The intervention is applied for 48 hours postrandomisation or until discharge (whichever is earlier).

Endpoints: The number of patients recruited per month and proportion of recruited to eligible patients are feasibility endpoints. New-onset acute kidney injury and the incidence of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 154 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free