Objectives
In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) of the National
Institutes of Health Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, a
conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Conservative) resulted in a lower
cumulative fluid balance and better outcomes than a liberal fluid protocol
(FACTT Liberal). Subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network
studies used a simplified conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Lite). The
objective of this study was to compare the performance of FACTT Lite, FACTT
Conservative, and FACTT Liberal protocols.
Design
Retrospective comparison of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT
Liberal. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance over 7 days. Secondary
outcomes were 60-day adjusted mortality and ventilator-free days through day
28. Safety outcomes were prevalence of acute kidney injury and new
shock.
Setting
ICUs of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network participating
hospitals.
Patients
Five hundred three subjects managed with FACTT Conservative, 497
subjects managed with FACTT Liberal, and 1,124 subjects managed with FACTT
Lite.
Interventions
Fluid management by protocol.
Measurements and Main Results
Cumulative fluid balance was 1,918 ± 323 mL in FACTT Lite,
−136 ±491 mL in FACTT Conservative, and 6,992 ± 502
mL in FACTT Liberal (p < 0.001). Mortality was not
different between groups (24% in FACTT Lite, 25% in FACTT
Conservative and Liberal, p = 0.84).
Ventilator-free days in FACTT Lite (14.9 ±0.3) were equivalent to
FACTT Conservative (14.6±0.5) (p = 0.61)
and greater than in FACTT Liberal (12.1 ±0.5, p
< 0.001 vs Lite). Acute kidney injury prevalence was 58% in
FACTT Lite and 57% in FACTT Conservative (p
= 0.72). Prevalence of new shock in FACTT Lite (9%) was
lower than in FACTT Conservative (13%) (p =
0.007 vs Lite) and similar to FACTT Liberal (11%)
(p = 0.18 vs Lite).
Conclusions
FACTT Lite had a greater cumulative fluid balance than FACTT
Conservative but had equivalent clinical and safety outcomes. FACTT Lite is
an alternative to FACTT Conservative for fluid management in Acute
Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Findings demonstrate that a majority of parents accepted newborn screening for FMR1 gene expansions, but decision rates and reasons for accepting or declining varied in part as a function of race/ethnicity and in part as a function of what parents most valued or feared in their assessment of risks and benefits.
Purpose: To identify specific components of ICU clinician supportive care and communication that are associated with increased post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms for surrogate decision makers of patients with chronic critical illness (CCI). Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of palliative care-led meetings to provide information and support for CCI surrogates. The primary outcome for this secondary analysis was PTSD symptoms at 90 days, measured by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). Caregiver perceptions of clinician support and communication were assessed using a version of the After-Death Bereaved Family Member Interview (ADBFMI)
Among surrogate decision-makers for chronically critically ill patients, high anxiety and depression scores and patient unresponsiveness on or near Day 10 of mechanical ventilation are risk factors for PTSD symptoms at 90 days.
In a large-scale population-based study, 19.6% of fathers were absent for the consent process. Scenarios encountered underscore the complexity of parental relations and their implications for obtaining consent for research involving children. The algorithm developed may serve as a useful tool for others in applying the regulatory requirements for dual parental permission.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.