Fluid balance control in critically ill patients: results from POINCARE-2 stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial - Critical Care

Background In critically ill patients, positive fluid balance is associated with excessive mortality. The POINCARE-2 trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of a fluid balance control strategy on mortality in critically ill patients. Methods POINCARE-2 was a stepped wedge cluster open-label randomized controlled trial. We recruited critically ill patients in twelve volunteering intensive care units from nine French hospitals. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, under mechanical ventilation, admitted to one of the 12 recruiting units for > 48 and ≤ 72 h, and had an expected length of stay after inclusion > 24 h. Recruitment started on May 2016 and ended on May 2019. Of 10,272 patients screened, 1361 met the inclusion criteria and 1353 completed follow-up. The POINCARE-2 strategy consisted of a daily weight-driven restriction of fluid intake, diuretics administration, and ultrafiltration in case of renal replacement therapy between Day 2 and Day 14 after admission. The primary outcome was 60-day all-cause mortality. We considered intention-to-treat analyses in cluster-randomized analyses (CRA) and in randomized before-and-after analyses (RBAA). Results A total of 433 (643) patients in the strategy group and 472 (718) in the control group were included in the CRA (RBAA). In the CRA, mean (SD) age was 63.7 (14.1) versus 65.7 (14.3) years, and mean (SD) weight at admission was 78.5 (20.0) versus 79.4 (23.5) kg. A total of 129 (160) patients died in the strategy (control) group. Sixty-day mortality did not differ between groups [30.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 26.2–34.8 vs. 33.9%, 95% CI 29.6–38.2, p = 0.26]. Among safety outcomes, only hypernatremia was more frequent in the strategy group (5.3% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.01). The RBAA led to similar results. Conclusion The POINCARE-2 conservative strategy did not reduce mortality in critically ill patients. However, due to open-label and stepped wedge design, intention-to-treat analyses might not reflect actual exposure to this strategy, and further analyses might be required before completely discarding it. Trial registration POINCARE-2 trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02765009). Registered 29 April 2016.

BioMed Central

@jopo_dr it is striking how hard it is to find a robust difference in effect among a broad array of fluid strategies

Maybe there are just several more or less equivalent ways to skin this cat?

@iwashyna @jopo_dr it’s very difficult to prove a therapy or strategy is effective when our tools for defining the problem we are monitoring are unreliable. No shortage of examples of this in ccm/icm.

@RogovtTed @jopo_dr

I thought Mike Sjoding did a nice job of formalizing that intuition in

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015753/

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Measurement Error. Potential Effect on Clinical Study Results

Rationale: Identifying patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a recognized challenge. Experts often have only moderate agreement when applying the clinical definition of ARDS to patients. However, no study has fully examined the implications ...

PubMed Central (PMC)

@iwashyna @RogovtTed @jopo_dr
Indeed !
That’s the problem with “syndrome definition”. It’s a heterogenous population with different pathophysiology. “one size fits all” approach/strategy is very likely leading to negative results.

Sometimes, we forgot the clinical endpoint of it. Like in the case of fluid resuscitation, it’s rather a matter of tissue perfusion than fluid strategy.

We should ask ourselves more often “if we should rather than if we could” 😂

@matdesgro @RogovtTed @jopo_dr

I hear you, sir … yet if every patient is unique, there is no science. Finding the commonalities in our patients is so essential

@iwashyna @RogovtTed @jopo_dr
I completely agree.
There’s probably common pattern/phenotypes of clinical presentation according to underlying pathophysiology. Identifying this is key. Once it’s done, there’re will be better population selection in trials & better evidence

At bedside, the challenge will be identifying the path taken by the patient & adapting treatment according to it

We will be able to better personalize patient care that way in sense

@matdesgro @RogovtTed @jopo_dr

Thankfully it is not an either/or. Because even though we just discovered endotypes, supportive care for common stuff has really gotten us a long way already.

@iwashyna @RogovtTed @jopo_dr
Cannot agree more. Supportive care is a cornerstone of critical care.
As a friend & collègues of mine said “ICU is pretty simple, support the patient to the best of your ability to let time do its thing”