Table 3.

Fluid Administration During Intervention Window

Variable	LR Group	NS Group	Difference (95% CI)
Total crystalloid volumes administered
Crystalloid fluid volume (mL/kg)
Total fluid	107 (60 to 155)	98 (63 to 128)	−9 (−57 to 35)
Bolus fluid
Prerandomization	20 (19 to 23)	20 (17 to 27)	0 (−1 to 4)
Postrandomization	38 (20 to 60)	33 (20 to 40)	−5 (−28 to 18)
Maintenance fluid
Total	49 (18 to 88)	35 (24 to 78)	−14 (−50 to 18)
NS	0 (0 to 0)	21 (2 to 41)	21 (4 to 39)
LR	40 (9 to 78)	0 (0 to 0)	−40 (−68 to −11)
Other	0 (0 to 0)	0 (0 to 21)	0 (0 to 17)
Proportion of patients receiving ≥60 mL/kg as bolus fluid	9 (38)	11 (42)
Adherence to study arm
Fluid compliance among isotonic fluidsa,b
Pre- and postrandomization fluidc	15 (63)	23 (88)
Postrandomization fluid	20 (83)	24 (92)
Proportion of isotonic fluid as NS
Pre- and postrandomizationc	20 (13 to 35)	100 (100 to 100)	80 (69 to 85)
Postrandomization	0 (0 to 0)	100 (100 to 100)	100 (100 to 100)
Proportion of isotonic fluid as LR
Pre- and postrandomization	80 (65 to 87)	0 (0 to 0)	−80 (−85 to −69)
Postrandomization	100 (100 to 100)	0 (0 to 0)	−100 (−100 to −100)

Data are reported as n (%) or median (IQR).

IQR = interquartile range; LR = lactated Ringer’s; NS = 0.9% normal saline.

^aFluid compliance was defined as receipt of ≥75% of study fluid as LR in LR group and ≥90% of study fluid as NS in NS group.

^bIsotonic fluids included LR, NS, D5 LR, or D5 NS with additional electrolytes permitted as per clinical team.

^cElements that were determined a priori as feasibility metrics.