BACKGROUND Both balanced crystalloids and saline are used for intravenous fluid administration in critically ill adults, but it is not known which results in better clinical outcomes. METHODS In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in five intensive care units at an academic center, we assigned 15,802 adults to receive saline (0.9% sodium chloride) or balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A) according to the randomization of the unit to which they were admitted. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event within 30 days — a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as an elevation of the creatinine level to ≥200% of baseline) — all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever occurred first. RESULTS Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, 1139 (14.3%) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients (15.4%) in the saline group (marginal odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99; conditional odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99; P = 0.04). In-hospital mortality at 30 days was 10.3% in the balanced-crystalloids group and 11.1% in the saline group (P = 0.06). The incidence of new renal-replacement therapy was 2.5% and 2.9%, respectively (P = 0.08), and the incidence of persistent renal dysfunction was 6.4% and 6.6%, respectively (P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS Among critically ill adults, the use of balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid administration resulted in a lower rate of the composite outcome of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction than the use of saline. (Funded by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and others; SMART-MED and SMART-SURG ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02444988 and NCT02547779.)

BACKGROUND Comparative clinical effects of balanced crystalloids and saline are uncertain, particularly in noncritically ill patients cared for outside an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS We conducted a single-center, pragmatic, multiple-crossover trial comparing balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A) with saline among adults who were treated with intravenous crystalloids in the emergency department and were subsequently hospitalized outside an ICU. The type of crystalloid that was administered in the emergency department was assigned to each patient on the basis of calendar month, with the entire emergency department crossing over between balanced crystalloids and saline monthly during the 16-month trial. The primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive after discharge before day 28). Secondary outcomes included major adverse kidney events within 30 days — a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as an elevation of the creatinine level to ≥200% of baseline) — all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever occurred first. RESULTS A total of 13,347 patients were enrolled, with a median crystalloid volume administered in the emergency department of 1079 ml and 88.3% of the patients exclusively receiving the assigned crystalloid. The number of hospital-free days did not differ between the balanced-crystalloids and saline groups (median, 25 days in each group; adjusted odds ratio with balanced crystalloids, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.04; P = 0.41). Balanced crystalloids resulted in a lower incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days than saline (4.7% vs. 5.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.95; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Among noncritically ill adults treated with intravenous fluids in the emergency department, there was no difference in hospital-free days between treatment with balanced crystalloids and treatment with saline.

Objective To determine whether addition of an electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool to electronic sepsis alerting improves compliance with treatment guidelines and clinical outcomes in septic intensive care unit patients. Design A pragmatic randomized trial. Setting Medical and surgical intensive care units of an academic, tertiary care medical center Patients Four hundred and seven patients admitted during a 4-month period to the medical or surgical intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis established at the time of admission or in response to an electronic sepsis alert. Interventions Patients were randomized to usual care or the availability of an electronic tool capable of importing, synthesizing, and displaying sepsis-related data from the medical record, using logic rules to offer individualized evaluations of sepsis severity and response to therapy, informing users about evidence-based guidelines, and facilitating rapid order entry. Measurements and Main Results There was no difference between the electronic tool (218 patients) and usual care (189 patients) with regard to the primary outcome of time to completion of all indicated Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6 hour Sepsis Resuscitation Bundle elements (Hazard Ratio 1.98, 95% Confidence Interval 0.75 – 5.20, p=0.159) or time to completion of each element individually. ICU mortality, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days did not differ between intervention and control. Providers used the tool to enter orders in only 28% of available cases. Conclusions A comprehensive electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool is feasible and safe but did not influence guideline compliance or clinical outcomes, perhaps due to low utilization.

Physicians' and nurses' task performance and information utilization reflect the distributed nature of work organization in intensive care unit remote monitoring. Workflow interruption, clinical information system usability, and collaboration with bedside caregivers are the major issues that may affect the quality and efficiency of clinicians' work in this particular critical care setting.