Cited by 129Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyAbdominal Surgery and Complications

Restricted fluid resuscitation in suspected sepsis associated hypotension (REFRESH): a pilot randomised controlled trial

Open access
Macdonald, Stephen P. J., Keijzers, Gerben, Taylor, David McD, Kinnear, Frances, Arendts, Glenn, Fatovich, Daniel M., Bellomo, Rinaldo, McCutcheon, David +8 more·2018·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

Purpose To determine if a regimen of restricted fluids and early vasopressor compared to usual care is feasible for initial resuscitation of hypotension due to suspected sepsis.Methods A prospective, randomised, open-label, clinical trial of a restricted fluid resuscitation regimen in the first 6 h among patients in the emergency department (ED) with suspected sepsis and a systolic blood pressure under 100 mmHg, after minimum 1000 ml of IV fluid. Primary outcome was total fluid administered within 6 h post randomisation.Results There were 99 participants (50 restricted volume and 49 usual care) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median volume from presentation to 6 h in the restricted volume group was 2387 ml [first to third quartile (Q1-Q3) 1750-2750 ml]; 30 ml/kg (Q1-Q3 32-39 ml/kg) vs. 3000 ml (Q1-Q3 2250-3900 ml); 43 ml/kg (Q1-Q3 35-50 ml/kg) in the usual care group (p < 0.001). Median duration of vasopressor support was 21 h (Q1-Q3 9-42 h) vs. 33 h (Q1-Q3 15-50 h), (p = 0.13) in the restricted volume and usual care groups, respectively. At 90-days, 4 of 48 (8%) in the restricted volume group and 3 of 47 (6%) in the usual care group had died. Protocol deviations occurred in 6/50 (12%) in restricted group and 11/49 (22%) in the usual care group, and serious adverse events in four cases (8%) in each group.Conclusions A regimen of restricted fluids and early vasopressor in ED patients with suspected sepsis and hypotension appears feasible. Illness severity was moderate and mortality rates low. A future trial is necessary with recruitment of high-risk patients to determine effects on clinical outcomes in this setting.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-018-5433-0

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The current evidence evaluating a restrictive IV fluid strategy in septic patients varies in inclusion criteria, definitions of restrictive and liberal strategies, criteria for additional fluids, and duration of interventions.

    “The current evidence evaluating a restrictive IV fluid strategy in the management of septic patients varies with respect to the inclusion criteria, the definition of restrictive and liberal fluid strategies, the criteria guiding the administration of additional IV fluids (e.g., perfusion parameters vs. haemodynamic variables), and the duration of the interventions [397–401].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Macdonald, S. P. J., Keijzers, G., Taylor, D. M., Kinnear, F., Arendts, G., Fatovich, D. M., Bellomo, R., McCutcheon, D., Fraser, J. F., Ascencio-Lane, J.-C., Burrows, S., Litton, E., Harley, A., Anstey, M., Mukherjee, A., & for the REFRESH trial investigators
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Prince Charles Hospital (AU)
  • Austin Hospital (AU)
  • Royal Hobart Hospital (AU)
  • Fiona Stanley Hospital (AU)
  • Gold Coast Hospital (AU)
  • Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (AU)
  • Armadale Health Service (AU)
Corresponding author
Macdonald, Stephen P. J.
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2018-10-31
Volume
44
Issue
12
Pages
2070-2078
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W2898967013
Cited by
129
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9
FWCI
10.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
Queensland Emergency Medicine Research Foundation (EMSS-229R24-2015)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
Keywords
sepsis, septic shock, hypotension, fluid resuscitation, emergency department, protocol feasibility, mortality, protocol adherence
MeSH terms
Aged, Blood Pressure, Drug Administration Schedule, Emergency Service, Hospital, Feasibility Studies, Female, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Hypotension, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Resuscitation, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Sepsis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review