Trial reportAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2022
Restrictive fluids versus standard care in adults with sepsis in the emergency department (REFACED): A multicenter, randomized feasibility trial.
Trial report in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Restrictive fluids versus standard care in adults with sepsis in the emergency department (REFACED): A multicenter, randomized feasibility trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022Trial
- Beyond Fluid Responsiveness: Why Venous Congestion Matters in Sepsis.Current medical science · 2026Article
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Strategy for Initial Resuscitation in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2026Article
- Personalized Fluid Management in Patients With Sepsis and Acute Kidney Injury: A Causal Machine Learning Approach.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of baseline plasma D-dimer levels in sepsis: a prospective cohort study.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Early initiated noradrenaline versus fluid therapy for hypotension and shock in the emergency department (VASOSHOCK): a protocol for a pragmatic, multi-center, superiority, randomized controlled trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Managing sepsis and septic shock in an endothelial glycocalyx-friendly way: from the viewpoint of surviving sepsis campaign guidelines.Annals of intensive care · 2024Review
- Precision fluid and vasoactive drug therapy for critically ill patients.Pharmacotherapy · 2023Review
- Review
- Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Patients.Cureus · 2023Review
- Evolving Management Practices for Early Sepsis-induced Hypoperfusion: A Narrative Review.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Review
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid treatment in sepsis is a challenge and clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) volumes. We aimed to determine whether a 24-h protocol restricting IV fluid was feasible in adult patients with sepsis without shock presenting to the emergency department (ED).
methodsThe REFACED Sepsis trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label, feasibility trial, assigning sepsis patients without shock to 24 h of restrictive, crystal IV fluid administration or standard care. In the IV fluid restriction group fluid boluses were only permitted if predefined criteria for hypoperfusion occurred. Standard care was at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome was total IV crystalloid fluid volumes at 24 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included total fluid volumes, feasibility measures, and patient-centered outcomes.
resultsWe included 123 patients (restrictive 61 patients and standard care 62 patients) in the primary analysis. A total of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-37%) of eligible patients meeting all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were included. At 24 h, the mean (±SD) IV crystalloid fluid volumes were 562 (±1076) ml versus 1370 (±1438) ml in the restrictive versus standard care group (mean difference -801 ml, 95% CI -1257 to -345 ml, p = 0.001). Protocol violations occurred in 21 (34%) patients in the fluid-restrictive group. There were no differences between groups in adverse events, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, acute kidney failure, length of stay, or mortality.
conclusionsA protocol restricting IV crystalloid fluids in ED patients with sepsis reduced 24-h fluid volumes compared to standard care. A future trial powered toward patient-centered outcomes appears feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.