BACKGROUNDIntravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODSIn this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTSWe enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, −1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, −7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONSAmong adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.

Introduction Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analystblinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events, serious adverse reactions, days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of hospital at day 90, and mortality, health-related quality of life, and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat population. Discussion The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.

Background Thrombocytopenia is frequent in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and may be associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with thrombocytopenia in adult ICU patients. Methods We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included study reports on adult ICU patients with thrombocytopenia and assessed patient‐important outcomes, including mortality and health‐related quality‐of‐life. Results We included a total of 70 studies comprising a total of 215 098 patients; 57 were cohort studies. The incidence of thrombocytopenia varied from 8 to 56 per 100 admissions (very low quality of evidence). We identified several risk factors including age, sepsis, and higher disease severity (low quality of evidence). Thrombocytopenia was associated with bleeding, use of life support, length of stay in the ICU, and increased mortality (low/very low quality of evidence). Data on platelet transfusion before invasive procedures and transfusion thresholds were limited. No studies assessed the benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients with thrombocytopenia. Conclusions Thrombocytopenia is common and associated with increased morbidity and mortality in adult ICU patients. Several risk factors for thrombocytopenia exists, but the evidence‐base on management strategies, including transfusion thresholds and thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients is very limited.