The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 354:2564-2575 June 15, 2006 Number 24
NextNext

Comparison of Two Fluid-Management Strategies in Acute Lung Injury
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-PowerPoint Slide Set
-Supplementary Material

Commentary
-Editorial
 by Rivers, E. P.
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited
-E-mail When Letters Appear

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Optimal fluid management in patients with acute lung injury is unknown. Diuresis or fluid restriction may improve lung function but could jeopardize extrapulmonary-organ perfusion.

Methods In a randomized study, we compared a conservative and a liberal strategy of fluid management using explicit protocols applied for seven days in 1000 patients with acute lung injury. The primary end point was death at 60 days. Secondary end points included the number of ventilator-free days and organ-failure–free days and measures of lung physiology.

Results The rate of death at 60 days was 25.5 percent in the conservative-strategy group and 28.4 percent in the liberal-strategy group (P=0.30; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, –2.6 to 8.4 percent). The mean (±SE) cumulative fluid balance during the first seven days was –136±491 ml in the conservative-strategy group and 6992±502 ml in the liberal-strategy group (P<0.001). As compared with the liberal strategy, the conservative strategy improved the oxygenation index ([mean airway pressurexthe ratio of the fraction of inspired oxygen to the partial pressure of arterial oxygen]x100) and the lung injury score and increased the number of ventilator-free days (14.6±0.5 vs. 12.1±0.5, P<0.001) and days not spent in the intensive care unit (13.4±0.4 vs. 11.2±0.4, P<0.001) during the first 28 days but did not increase the incidence or prevalence of shock during the study or the use of dialysis during the first 60 days (10 percent vs. 14 percent, P=0.06).

Conclusions Although there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of 60-day mortality, the conservative strategy of fluid management improved lung function and shortened the duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care without increasing nonpulmonary-organ failures. These results support the use of a conservative strategy of fluid management in patients with acute lung injury. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00281268 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)


Source Information

The members of the Writing Committee (Herbert P. Wiedemann, M.D., Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; Arthur P. Wheeler, M.D., and Gordon R. Bernard, M.D., Vanderbilt University, Nashville; B. Taylor Thompson, M.D., and Douglas Hayden, M.A., Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Ben deBoisblanc, M.D., Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans; Alfred F. Connors, Jr., M.D., Case Western Reserve University at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland; R. Duncan Hite, M.D., Wake Forest University Health Sciences Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.; and Andrea L. Harabin, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md.) assume responsibility for the integrity of the article.

This article was published at www.nejm.org on May 21, 2006.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Wiedemann at the Department of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Desk A-90, Cleveland, OH 44195, or at wiedemh{at}ccf.org.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Fluid-Management Strategies in Acute Lung Injury
Schuller D., Schuster D. P., Morizio A., Kupfer Y., Tessler S., Amaral A. C.K.B., Amado V. M., Wiedemann H. P., Wheeler A. P., Hayden D.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1175-1176, Sep 14, 2006. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.