4.6 Article

Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery (RELIEF): rationale and design for a multicentre randomised trial

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015358

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian NHMRC
  2. New Zealand Health Research Council
  3. Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists
  4. Monash University (Melbourne, Australia)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The optimal intravenous fluid regimen for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery is unclear. However, results from many small studies suggest a restrictive regimen may lead to better outcomes. A large, definitive clinical trial evaluating perioperative fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery, therefore, is required. Methods/analysis: We designed a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (the RELIEF trial). A total of 3000 patients were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated to a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen in a 1: 1 ratio, stratified by centre and planned critical care admission. The expected fluid volumes in the first 24 hour from the start of surgery in restrictive and liberal groups were <= 3.0 L and >= 5.4 L, respectively. Patient enrolment is complete, and follow-up for the primary end point is ongoing. The primary outcome is disability-free survival at 1 year after surgery, with disability defined as a persistent (at least 6 months) reduction in functional status using the 12-item version of the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule. Ethics/dissemination: The RELIEF trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committees of all participating sites. Participant recruitment began in March 2013 and was completed in August 2016, and 1-year follow-up will conclude in August 2017. Publication of the results of the RELIEF trial is anticipated in early 2018.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available