About REDUSE

Overview

The REDUSE trial (NCT06140147) is a multicentre, investigator initiated, randomized clinical superiority trial comparing a protocolized restrictive strategy for administration of non-resuscitation fluids with usual care in participants with septic shock. Adult patients admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) with septic shock are eligible for inclusion. Participants are randomized to the intervention arm or the control arm within 12 hours of admission.

Interventions

In the intervention arm, all intravenous drugs and nutrition are concentrated and administered using a protocol aimed to reduce the total volume of fluid. Participants do not receive maintenance fluids unless the total volume of fluid is not enough to provide hydration. Resuscitation fluids are administered according to local routines. The intervention lasts for the duration of the ICU stay. Participants in the control arm receive usual care.

Outcomes

The primary outcome is mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include complications during ICU stay, cognitive function, health related quality of life at 6 months, and days alive without mechanical ventilation at 90 days. Healthcare staff involved in the care of the participant are not blinded to the intervention but participants, outcome assessors, statisticians, data managers, and conclusion drawers are all blinded to treatment allocation.

Background and rationale

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a host response to infection. Recent estimates suggest that 48 million cases of sepsis occur globally every year and that 11 million sepsis related deaths occur annually with the majority of cases occurring in developing countries. Septic shock is a type of sepsis with particularly severe circulatory and metabolic abnormalities. Approximately 35-50% of patients with septic shock die.

Administration of fluids is an essential component of the care of patients suffering from septic shock. Fluids are administered for different reasons:

Resuscitation fluids - administered intravenously to ensure adequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation.

Non-resuscitation fluids - administered intravenously and enterally as vehicles for medications, as vehicles for nutrition, to correct electrolyte disturbances, and as maintenance fluids to ensure adequate hydration.

A total of about 1-2 L of fluid per day (about 1 ml/kg/h) is required for adequate hydration in healthy people, but may increase in pathophysiological conditions due to higher than normal losses. More than 50% of patients with septic shock receive 4 L or more of fluids in the first day in the ICU. This may be adequate in patients with pre-existing deficits, but data suggest that administration of large volumes of fluids is not without risks. Previous non-randomised studies have indicated that excessive fluid administration might have detrimental adverse effects such as tissue edema, which causes impaired oxygen delivery and organ function, and compartment syndromes.

This has precipitated several trials comparing restrictive administration of resuscitation fluids with usual care in adult septic shock patients all of which obtained only small differences in administered fluid volumes and no differences in clinical outcomes.

However, as non-resuscitation fluids are the major source of fluid after the first day in the ICU, it stands to reason that targeting non-resuscitation fluids would more effectively reduce fluid administration than targeting resuscitation fluids. To this end, we recently completed a multicentre feasibility trial comparing a protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids to usual care in septic shock (NCT05249088). Our data suggest that this approach may reduce the total volume of administered fluids by a mean of 3.6 L in the first 3 days after inclusion. This reduction is almost twice as large as the most effective protocol targeting the restriction of resuscitation fluids. The effectiveness of this approach warrants a trial assessing the effect of protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluid administration on patient-important outcomes in septic shock. Because non-resuscitation fluids differ in composition and are administered for different indications than resuscitation fluids the balance between benefit and harm for the two groups of fluids may differ, further strengthening the argument for such a trial.