Cited by 116Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyAcute Kidney Injury Research

The Restrictive IV Fluid Trial in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock (RIFTS): A Randomized Pilot Study*

Open access
Corl, Keith A., Prodromou, Michael, Merchant, Roland C., Gareen, Ilana, Marks, Sarah, Banerjee, Debasree, Amass, Timothy, Abbasi, Adeel +5 more·2019·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: It is unclear if a low- or high-volume IV fluid resuscitation strategy is better for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting: Two adult acute care hospitals within a single academic system. Patients: Patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted from the emergency department to the ICU from November 2016 to February 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to a restrictive IV fluid resuscitation strategy (≤ 60 mL/kg of IV fluid) or usual care for the first 72 hours of care. Measurements and Main Results: We enrolled 109 patients, of whom 55 were assigned to the restrictive resuscitation group and 54 to the usual care group. The restrictive group received significantly less resuscitative IV fluid than the usual care group (47.1 vs 61.1 mL/kg; p = 0.01) over 72 hours. By 30 days, there were 12 deaths (21.8%) in the restrictive group and 12 deaths (22.2%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41–2.53). There were no differences between groups in the rate of new organ failure, hospital or ICU length of stay, or serious adverse events. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrates that a restrictive resuscitation strategy can successfully reduce the amount of IV fluid administered to patients with severe sepsis and septic shock compared with usual care. Although limited by the sample size, we observed no increase in mortality, organ failure, or adverse events. These findings further support that a restrictive IV fluid strategy should be explored in a larger multicenter trial.

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 · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000003779

Cites

28 of 28 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
Corl, K. A., Prodromou, M., Merchant, R. C., Gareen, I., Marks, S., Banerjee, D., Amass, T., Abbasi, A., Delcompare, C., Palmisciano, A., Aliotta, J., Jay, G., & Levy, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2019-07
Volume
47
Issue
7
Pages
951-959
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2939690307
Cited by
116
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 7
FWCI
11.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (L30 GM129773)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
restrictive fluid resuscitation, septic shock, severe sepsis, intravenous fluid therapy, volume of fluid, mortality, organ failure, intensive care unit
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Fluid Therapy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Shock, Septic, Comorbidity, 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