Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2025
Restrictive fluid management with early de-escalation versus usual care in critically ill patients (reduce trial): a feasibility randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restrictive fluid management with early de-escalation versus usual care in critically ill patients (reduce trial): a feasibility randomized controlled trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: The Role of Kidney-Lung Crosstalk and Renal Replacement Therapy, a Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Why Post-Cardiac Arrest Interventions Often Fail: Therapeutic Amenability and the Rapidly Closing Window of Neuroprotection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Specialized nursing improves clinical outcomes in pediatric AKI patients undergoing CRRT: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Biomarker-driven risk stratification and early intervention in acute kidney injury: a comprehensive review from early warning to clinical response.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Lung Involvement in Patients with Leptospirosis in Tropical Australia; Associations, Clinical Course and Implications for Management.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal fluid management in critically ill patients varies across different phases of care. This study examined the feasibility of adding a restrictive fluid strategy with early de-escalation to standard care for patients with circulatory shock.
methodsWe performed a single-center, feasibility, randomized controlled trial, involving patients with shock who required fluid resuscitation and were admitted in the medical intensive care unit. After initial fluid resuscitation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either a restrictive fluid strategy or usual care. The restrictive group targeted a near-zero fluid balance over 3 days by limiting fluid intake and using diuretics or mechanical fluid removal when needed. The primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance at day 3. The secondary outcomes were the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital, the mechanical ventilation duration, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and mortality.
resultsWe enrolled 100 patients, assigning 50 to the restrictive strategy and 50 to usual care. By day 3, the restrictive group showed a lower cumulative fluid balance than usual care (‒2353 mL vs. 793 mL, p < 0.001). This trend continued to day 7 (‒3032 mL vs. 1125 mL, p < 0.001). The restrictive group also had shorter stays in the intensive care unit and the hospital (7 vs. 10 days, p = 0.006; 16 vs. 22 days, p = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in hospital or 30-day mortality rates between the groups (18% vs. 38%, p = 0.05; 12% vs. 30%, p = 0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of acute kidney injury or the use of renal replacement therapy.
conclusionsA restrictive fluid strategy with early de-escalation and de-resuscitation is feasible and may reduce fluid accumulation and showed a signal for reduced hospital stay without increasing adverse events in critically ill patients following acute fluid resuscitation.
trial registrationTCTR20220719002 (The trial has been reviewed and approved by TCTR committee on July 16th, 2022).
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.