Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock: the CRISTAL randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE Evidence supporting the choice of intravenous colloid vs crystalloid solutions for management of hypovolemic shock remains unclear. OBJECTIVE To test whether use of colloids compared with crystalloids for fluid resuscitation alters mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with hypovolemic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, randomized clinical trial stratified by case mix (sepsis, trauma, or hypovolemic shock without sepsis or trauma). Therapy in the Colloids Versus Crystalloids for the Resuscitation of the Critically Ill (CRISTAL) trial was open label but outcome assessment was blinded to treatment assignment. Recruitment began in February 2003 and ended in August 2012 of 2857 sequential ICU patients treated at 57 ICUs in France, Belgium, North Africa, and Canada; follow-up ended in November 2012. INTERVENTIONS Colloids (n = 1414; gelatins, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starches, or 4% or 20% of albumin) or crystalloids (n = 1443; isotonic or hypertonic saline or Ringer lactate solution) for all fluid interventions other than fluid maintenance throughout the ICU stay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was death within 28 days. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality; and days alive and not receiving renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor therapy. RESULTS Within 28 days, there were 359 deaths (25.4%) in colloids group vs 390 deaths (27.0%) in crystalloids group (relative risk [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.04]; P = .26). Within 90 days, there were 434 deaths (30.7%) in colloids group vs 493 deaths (34.2%) in crystalloids group (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]; P = .03). Renal replacement therapy was used in 156 (11.0%) in colloids group vs 181 (12.5%) in crystalloids group (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03]; P = .19). There were more days alive without mechanical ventilation in the colloids group vs the crystalloids group by 7 days (mean: 2.1 vs 1.8 days, respectively; mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.48] days; P = .01) and by 28 days (mean: 14.6 vs 13.5 days; mean difference, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.14 to 2.06] days; P = .01) and alive without vasopressor therapy by 7 days (mean: 5.0 vs 4.7 days; mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.50] days; P = .04) and by 28 days (mean: 16.2 vs 15.2 days; mean difference, 1.04 [95% CI, -0.04 to 2.10] days; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among ICU patients with hypovolemia, the use of colloids vs crystalloids did not result in a significant difference in 28-day mortality. Although 90-day mortality was lower among patients receiving colloids, this finding should be considered exploratory and requires further study before reaching conclusions about efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00318942.

[1]  J. Vincent Evidence-based colloid use in the critically ill: American Thoracic Society Consensus Statement. , 2004, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[2]  Yoon Kim,et al.  Validation of the International Classification of Diseases 10th Edition-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS). , 2000, The Journal of trauma.

[3]  P. Alderson,et al.  Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. , 2000, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  S. Lemeshow,et al.  A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. , 1993, JAMA.

[5]  H Merabet,et al.  The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials , 2013 .

[6]  W. Knaus,et al.  Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. , 1992, Chest.

[7]  P. Perel,et al.  Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[8]  Michael Bailey,et al.  Association between a chloride-liberal vs chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults. , 2012, JAMA.

[9]  Robyn Norton,et al.  A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the Intensive Care unit , 2005 .

[10]  Rolf Rossaint,et al.  Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  J. E. Carceller American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis , 1992, Critical care medicine.

[12]  A. Delaney,et al.  The role of albumin as a resuscitation fluid for patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis* , 2011, Critical care medicine.

[13]  J. Murray,et al.  Biologically active products of complement and acute lung injury in patients with the sepsis syndrome. , 1984, The American review of respiratory disease.

[14]  R. Bellomo,et al.  Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  L. Hinshaw,et al.  The Fundamental Mechanisms of Shock , 1972, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology.

[16]  M. Weil,et al.  Proposed reclassification of shock states with special reference to distributive defects. , 1971, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[17]  D. E. Lawrence,et al.  APACHE—acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system , 1981, Critical care medicine.

[18]  D. Cook,et al.  Resuscitation fluid use in critically ill adults: an international cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units , 2010, Critical care.

[19]  P. Lachenbruch,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Sequential Clinical Trials (2nd ed.). , 1993 .

[20]  J. Bromilow,et al.  Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's Acetate in Severe Sepsis , 2013 .

[21]  Dean A Fergusson,et al.  Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2013, JAMA.

[22]  J. Vincent,et al.  The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure , 1996, Intensive Care Medicine.

[23]  C. Sprung,et al.  Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012 , 2013, Intensive Care Medicine.

[24]  J. Tenhunen,et al.  Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  I. Velasco,et al.  Clinical review: Hypertonic saline resuscitation in sepsis , 2002, Critical care.

[26]  G. Jackson,et al.  Gram-Negative Bacteremia: I. Etiology and Ecology , 1962 .