Showing posts with label Landmark trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Landmark trial. Show all posts

Thursday, May 24, 2018

SAFE study - Albumin vs Saline for fluid resuscitation in ICU

A Comparison of Albumin and Saline for Fluid Resuscitation in the Intensive Care Unit

  • The SAFE Study Investigators
  • *
    N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2247-2256
    BACKGROUND
    It remains uncertain whether the choice of resuscitation fluid for patients in intensive care units (ICUs) affects survival. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial to compare the effect of fluid resuscitation with albumin or saline on mortality in a heterogeneous population of patients in the ICU.

    METHODS
    We randomly assigned patients who had been admitted to the ICU to receive either 4 percent albumin or normal saline for intravascular-fluid resuscitation during the next 28 days. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause during the 28-day period after randomization.

    RESULTS
    Of the 6997 patients who underwent randomization, 3497 were assigned to receive albumin and 3500 to receive saline; the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. There were 726 deaths in the albumin group, as compared with 729 deaths in the saline group (relative risk of death, 0.99; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.09; P=0.87). The proportion of patients with new single-organ and multiple-organ failure was similar in the two groups (P=0.85). There were no significant differences between the groups in the mean (±SD) numbers of days spent in the ICU (6.5±6.6 in the albumin group and 6.2±6.2 in the saline group, P=0.44), days spent in the hospital (15.3±9.6 and 15.6±9.6, respectively; P=0.30), days of mechanical ventilation (4.5±6.1 and 4.3±5.7, respectively; P=0.74), or days of renal-replacement therapy (0.5±2.3 and 0.4±2.0, respectively; P=0.41).

    CONCLUSIONS
    In patients in the ICU, use of either 4 percent albumin or normal saline for fluid resuscitation results in similar outcomes at 28 days.

    To read the full text of the article click here

ARDS Network - Low tidal volume vs Traditional tidal volume

Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volumes as Compared with Traditional Tidal Volumes for Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

  • The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network
  • *
    N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1301-1308
    BACKGROUND-
    Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilation use tidal volumes of 10 to 15 ml per kilogram of body weight and may cause stretch-induced lung injury in patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. We therefore conducted a trial to determine whether ventilation with lower tidal volumes would improve the clinical outcomes in these patients.

    METHODS
    Patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized trial. The trial compared traditional ventilation treatment, which involved an initial tidal volume of 12 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an airway pressure measured after a 0.5-second pause at the end of inspiration (plateau pressure) of 50 cm of water or less, with ventilation with a lower tidal volume, which involved an initial tidal volume of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and a plateau pressure of 30 cm of water or less. The first primary outcome was death before a patient was discharged home and was breathing without assistance. The second primary outcome was the number of days without ventilator use from day 1 to day 28.

    RESULTS
    The trial was stopped after the enrollment of 861 patients because mortality was lower in the group treated with lower tidal volumes than in the group treated with traditional tidal volumes (31.0 percent vs. 39.8 percent, P=0.007), and the number of days without ventilator use during the first 28 days after randomization was greater in this group (mean [±SD], 12±11 vs. 10±11; P=0.007). The mean tidal volumes on days 1 to 3 were 6.2±0.8 and 11.8±0.8 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight (P<0.001), respectively, and the mean plateau pressures were 25±6 and 33±8 cm of water (P<0.001), respectively.

    CONCLUSIONS
    In patients with acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation with a lower tidal volume than is traditionally used results in decreased mortality and increases the number of days without ventilator use.

    To read the full text of the article click here

Disclaimer

Information provided here is for medical education only. It is not intended as and does not substitute for medical advice. If you are a patient, please see your doctor for evaluation of your individual case. The web site should not be used as a substitute for competent medical advice from a licensed physician. By accessing the web site, the visitors acknowledge that there is no physician-patient relationship between them and the author. Under no circumstances will the author be liable to you for any direct or indirect damages arising in connection with use of this website.

The appearance of external hyperlinks to other websites does not constitute endorsement. The author does not verify, endorse, or take responsibility for the accuracy, currency, completeness or quality of the content contained in these sites.

All information provided here is from textbooks/journals. I have provided references and given credit where applicable. I would be glad to take off any images/posts that you think violates your copyright policy. Please shoot an email to fnbcriticare@gmail.com