4.7 Article

Fluid balance control in critically ill patients: results from as-treated analyses of POINCARE-2 randomized trial

Journal

CRITICAL CARE
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04701-5

Keywords

Critical care; Water-electrolyte balance; Clinical trial; Complex intervention; Instrumental variable

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Actual exposure to the POINCARE-2 conservative strategy was not associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients.
Background Intention-to-treat analyses of POINCARE-2 trial led to inconclusive results regarding the effect of a conservative fluid balance strategy on mortality in critically ill patients. The present as-treated analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of actual exposure to POINCARE-2 strategy on 60-day mortality in critically ill patients.Methods POINCARE-2 was a stepped wedge randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were >= 18 years old, under mechanical ventilation and had an expected length of stay in ICU > 24 h. POINCARE-2 strategy consisted of daily weighing over 14 days, and subsequent restriction of fluid intake, administration of diuretics, and/or ultrafiltration. We computed a score of exposure to the strategy based on deviations from the strategy algorithm. We considered patients with a score >= 75 as exposed to the strategy. We used logistic regression adjusted for confounders (ALR) or for an instrumental variable (IVLR). We handled missing data using multiple imputations.Results A total of 1361 patients were included. Overall, 24.8% of patients in the control group and 69.4% of patients in the strategy group had a score of exposure >= 75. Exposure to the POINCARE-2 strategy was not associated with 60-day all-cause mortality (ALR: OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.85-1.55; IVLR: OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.76-1.33).Conclusion Actual exposure to POINCARE-2 conservative strategy was not associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available