Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40999428›Full record

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.

Thummaporn Naorungroj, Ukrit Prajantasen, Tewa Sanla-Ead, Tanuwong Viarasilpa, Surat Tongyoo

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thummaporn NaorungrojDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. thummaporn.nao@mahidol.ac.th.
Ukrit PrajantasenDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tewa Sanla-EadDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tanuwong ViarasilpaDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Surat TongyooDivision of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Fluid TherapyAgedCritical IllnessFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedShockCirculatory shockFluid balanceFluid de-escalation, de-resuscitationMortalityRestrictive fluid management

Identifiers

PMID40999428
PMCPMC12465594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.