REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial (REDUCE-1).

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous fluid therapy is the most common intervention in critically ill children. There is an increasing body of evidence questioning the safety of high-volume intravenous fluid administration in these patients. To date, the optimal fluid management strategy remains unclear. We aimed to test the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing a restrictive with a standard (liberal) fluid management strategy in critically ill children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multicentre, binational pilot, randomised, controlled, open-label, pragmatic trial. Patients <18 years admitted to paediatric intensive care unit and mechanically ventilated at the time of screening are eligible. Patients with tumour lysis syndrome, diabetic ketoacidosis or postorgan transplant are excluded. INTERVENTIONS: 1:1 random assignment of 154 individual patients into two groups-restrictive versus standard, liberal, fluid strategy-stratified by primary diagnosis (cardiac/non-cardiac). The intervention consists of a restrictive fluid bundle, including lower maintenance fluid allowance, limiting fluid boluses, reducing volumes of drug delivery and initiating diuretics or peritoneal dialysis earlier. The intervention is applied for 48 hours postrandomisation or until discharge (whichever is earlier). ENDPOINTS: The number of patients recruited per month and proportion of recruited to eligible patients are feasibility endpoints. New-onset acute kidney injury and the incidence of clinically relevant central venous thrombosis are safety endpoints. Fluid balance at 48 hours after randomisation is the efficacy endpoint. Survival free of paediatric intensive care censored at 28 days is the clinical endpoint. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was gained from the Children's Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/21/QCHQ/77514, date: 1 September 2021), and University of Zurich (2021-02447, date: 17 March 2023). The trial is registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621001311842). Open-access publication in high impact peer-reviewed journals will be sought. Modern information dissemination strategies will also be used including social media to disseminate the outcomes of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001311842. PROTOCOL VERSION/DATE: V5/23 May 2023.

Opinion: on the importance of maintaining the functional form of explanatory variables.

In medical research, continuous variables are often categorised into two or more groups before being included in the analysis; this practice often comes with a cost, such as loss of power in analysis, less reliable estimates, and can often leave residual confounding in the results. In this research report, we show this by way of estimates from a regression analysis looking at the association between acute kidney injury and post-operative mortality in a sample of 194 neonates who underwent the Norwood operation. Two models were developed, one using a continuous measure of renal function as the main explanatory variable and second using a categorised version of the same variable. A continuous measure of renal function is more likely to yield reliable estimates and also maintains more statistical power in the analysis to detect a relation between the exposure and outcome. It also reveals the true biological relationship between the exposure and outcome. Categorising a continuous variable may not only miss an important message, it can also get it wrong. Additionally, given a non-linear relationship is commonly encountered between the exposure and outcome variable, investigators are advised to retain a predictor with a linear term only when supported by data. All of this is particularly important in small data sets which account for the majority of clinical research studies.