CLASSIC v2.2

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    The Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) Trial

  • IRAS ID

    268321

  • Contact name

    Marlies Ostermann

  • Contact email

    Marlies.Ostermann@gstt.nhs.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Rigshospitalet

  • Eudract number

    2018-000404-42

  • Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

    NCT03668236

  • Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

    Danish Medicines Agency , 2018020596

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 1 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    Current international guidelines for the treatment of septic shock recommend a package of care including intravenous (IV) fluids. These guidelines recommend giving liberal volumes of IV fluid both in the first hours after septic shock diagnosis, and as a continuing therapy. However, they are based on expert opinion and not high-quality evidence. In addition, there is increasing concern that too much fluid causes fluid overload, which is harmful and makes organ failure worse.

    Septic shock continues to have a high mortality level (40-50%) even in the developed world. Data from observational studies, small, single-centre trials and systematic reviews suggest benefits from restriction of IV fluids in patients with septic shock. This may increase survival in critically ill adults. However, a large clinical trial is needed to evaluate this treatment strategy.

    The CLASSIC trial aims to enrol a total of 1554 patients. The primary objective is to assess the benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction as compared to standard care. Patients who are eligible and enrolled into the trial will be followed up to 1-year after enrolment.

    This important, high-quality trial will allow us to determine the best IV fluid administration strategy for treating septic shock in adult patients.

  • REC name

    South Central - Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    19/SC/0604

  • Date of REC Opinion

    18 Aug 2020

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion