PRagMatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced versus nOrmaL Saline FlUid in Sepsis: the PRoMPT BOLUS Randomized Controlled Trial Pilot Feasibility Study.

TitlePRagMatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced versus nOrmaL Saline FlUid in Sepsis: the PRoMPT BOLUS Randomized Controlled Trial Pilot Feasibility Study.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2019
AuthorsBalamuth F, Kittick M, McBride P, Woodford AL, Vestal N, T Casper C, Metheney M, Smith K, Atkin NJ, Baren J, J Dean M, Kuppermann N, Weiss SL
JournalAcad Emerg Med
Date Published2019 Jun 10
ISSN1553-2712
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Resuscitation with crystalloid fluid is a cornerstone of pediatric septic shock treatment. However, the optimal type of crystalloid fluid is unknown. We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized trial to compare balanced (lactated Ringer's [LR]) with 0.9% normal saline (NS) fluid resuscitation in children with suspected septic shock.

METHODS: Open-label pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) at a single academic children's hospital from January - August 2018. Eligible patients were >6 months to <18 years-old who were treated in the emergency department for suspected septic shock, operationalized as blood culture, parenteral antibiotics, and fluid resuscitation for abnormal perfusion. Screening, enrollment, and randomization were carried out by the clinical team as part of routine care. Patients were randomized to receive either LR or NS for up to 48 hours following randomization. Other than fluid type, all treatment decisions were at the clinical team's discretion. Feasibility outcomes included proportion of eligible patients enrolled, acceptability of enrollment via the U.S. federal exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations, and adherence to randomized study fluid administration.

RESULTS: Of 59 eligible patients, 50 (85%) were enrolled and randomized. Twenty four were randomized to LR and 26 to NS. Only one (2%) of 44 patients enrolled using EFIC withdrew before study completion. Total median crystalloid fluid volume received during the intervention window was 107 (IQR 60, 155) mL/kg and 98 (IQR 63, 128) mL/kg in the LR and NS arms, respectively (p=0.50). Patients randomized to LR received a median of only 20% (IQR 13, 32) of all study fluid as NS compared to 99% (IQR 64,100%) of study fluid as NS in the NS arm (absolute difference 79%, 95% CI 48,85).

CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatic study design proved feasible to study comparative effectiveness of LR versus NS fluid resuscitation for pediatric septic shock. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

DOI10.1111/acem.13815
Alternate JournalAcad Emerg Med
PubMed ID31183919