Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan
- PMID: 31276193
- DOI: 10.1111/aas.13434
Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan
Abstract
Introduction: Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock.
Methods: CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population.
Discussion: The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.
© 2019 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:304-377.
-
- Kollind M, Wickbom F, Wilkman E, et al. Shock treatment in a cohort of Scandinavian intensive care units in 2014. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016;60:945-957.
-
- Perner A, Cecconi M, Cronhjort M, et al. Expert statement for the management of hypovolemia in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:791-798.
-
- Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul J-L, et al. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: a global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1529-1537.
-
- Bihari S, Prakash S, Bersten AD. Post resusicitation fluid boluses in severe sepsis or septic shock. Shock. 2013;40:28-34.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
