Introduction0.9% saline and Ringer’s lactate are the two most common resuscitation crystalloid fluids. 0.9% saline may lead to hyperchloraemic metabolic acidosis and may be associated with impaired kidney function and death. Few large multicentre randomised trials have been conducted to evaluate the effect of these two fluids on clinically important outcomes.MethodsFLUID is a pragmatic pilot cluster randomised crossover trial in which four hospitals will be randomised to normal saline or Ringer’s lactate for 14 weeks, then crossover to the alternative fluid for the subsequent 14 weeks after 1 to 3 week transition. With waiver of informed consent, all adult and paediatric patients admitted to participating sites will be included in the FLUID trial except for neonates. Primary feasibility outcome is study fluid protocol adherence (target:≥80%). Secondary feasibility outcomes include time to research ethics board (REB) approval and readiness to trial initiation (≤3 months from REB submission and approval). Primary (composite of death or re-admission to hospital in first 90 days of index hospitalisation) and secondary clinical outcomes for the future large FLUID trial will be described. Protocol adherence will be collected by site at specified time points. All clinical data will be obtained at patient level through provincial health administrative data held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). Event rates for the primary and secondary outcomes will be described using frequencies and proportions with 95% CIs. Intracluster and interperiod correlation coefficients will be calculated from population-level data available at ICES.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Ottawa Health Science Research Ethics Board. The FLUID pilot will determine feasibility, and ICES data across all potential sites in Ontario will allow calculation of sample size parameter estimates to inform the design and implementation of the large trial.Trial registration numberNCT02721485; Pre-results.

IntroductionResearch on co-enrollment practices and their impact are limited in the ICU setting. The objectives of this study were: 1) to describe patterns and predictors of co-enrollment of patients in a thromboprophylaxis trial, and 2) to examine the consequences of co-enrollment on clinical and trial outcomes.MethodsIn an observational analysis of an international thromboprophylaxis trial in 67 ICUs, we examined the co-enrollment of critically ill medical-surgical patients into more than one study, and examined the clinical and trial outcomes among co-enrolled and non-co-enrolled patients.ResultsAmong 3,746 patients enrolled in PROTECT (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial), 713 (19.0%) were co-enrolled in at least one other study (53.6% in a randomized trial, 37.0% in an observational study and 9.4% in both). Six factors independently associated with co-enrollment (all P < 0.001) were illness severity (odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.53 for each 10-point Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score increase), substitute decision-makers providing consent, rather than patients (OR 3.31, 2.03 to 5.41), experience of persons inviting consent (OR 2.67, 1.74 to 4.11 for persons with > 10 years' experience compared to persons with none), center size (all ORs > 10 for ICUs with > 15 beds), affiliation with trials groups (OR 5.59, 3.49 to 8.95), and main trial rather than pilot phase (all ORs > 8 for recruitment year beyond the pilot). Co-enrollment did not influence clinical or trial outcomes or risk of adverse events.ConclusionsCo-enrollment was strongly associated with features of the patients, research personnel, setting and study. Co-enrollment had no impact on trial results, and appeared safe, acceptable and feasible. Transparent reporting, scholarly discourse, ethical analysis and further research are needed on the complex topic of co-enrollment during critical illness.

Tracking, analyzing, interpreting and reporting the rates and reasons for physicians declining to allow their patients to be approached for enrollment provides insights into clinicians' concerns and attitudes to trials. This information can encourage physician communication and education, and potentially enhance efficient recruitment.

No abstract

Purpose: Endothelial-like vascular progenitor cells (VPCs) are blood-derived angiogenic precursors that can facilitate vascular repair. The mobilization of peripheral blood VPCs and their role in recovery were investigated in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Methods: Blood samples were drawn on days 0, 3, 7 and 14 in 38 patients admitted to ICU: 30 with AKI and in eight controls with normal renal function. Circulating VPC levels were quantified by the early outgrowth cell cluster-forming assay and/or by flow cytometry. Results: AKI patients (16 males, mean age 62.4) were classified as Risk (R, n=5), Injury (I, n=11) and Failure (F, n=14) according to the RIFLE criteria. VPC clusters increased over time following the diagnosis of AKI (p < 0.01 for day 0 vs. day 14) while VPC clusters were higher at enrollment in control patients and decreased over time (p=0.02). Greater mobilization of VPCs occurred in patients with more severe AKI at enrollment (I and F categories compared with R, p=0.05). A trend towards greater mobilization of VPC clusters was observed in patients with improved renal function (p=0.07). Conclusion: Time-dependent increases in circulating VPCs occur in critically ill patients with established AKI. Greater mobilization of VPCs may be associated with recovery of renal function, suggesting a potential role for VPCs in repair after kidney injury.