Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial
Source: View publication →
In a large population of critically ill ICU patients, resuscitation with a balanced crystalloid solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality or the incidence of acute kidney injury compared to 0.9% saline.
Key Findings
Study Design
Study Limitations
Clinical Significance
The BaSICS trial provided robust, patient-level, double-blind randomized evidence that tempered the strong shift away from 0.9% saline initiated by the SMART and SALT-ED trials. By demonstrating no significant mortality or renal advantages in a general ICU population—and highlighting potential harm in traumatic brain injury—it reaffirmed that normal saline remains a reasonable, safe default resuscitation fluid for many critically ill patients. It suggested that the choice of crystalloid may matter less than previously thought for the broader critically ill population, shifting the critical care paradigm toward more individualized fluid selection (e.g., favoring normal saline in TBI).
Historical Context
For decades, 0.9% saline was the standard intravenous fluid in medicine. However, mechanistic evidence linking its high chloride content to hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, renal vasoconstriction, and acute kidney injury fueled a search for better alternatives. The unblinded, cluster-randomized SMART trial (2018) showed that balanced crystalloids significantly reduced a composite of major adverse kidney events and 30-day mortality, sparking a widespread systemic change to abandon saline. The BaSICS trial, designed as a massive, blinded, patient-level multi-center RCT, was initiated to definitively confirm these mortality benefits. Its null findings reignited the 'fluid wars,' introducing crucial nuance and suggesting that early fluid composition might yield only marginal differences in heterogeneous ICU populations.
Guided Discussion
High-yield insights from every perspective
What is the pathophysiologic mechanism by which large volumes of 0.9% saline are thought to cause acute kidney injury, and how do balanced solutions theoretically prevent this?
Key Response
0.9% saline has a supraphysiologic chloride concentration (154 mEq/L). Excessive chloride delivery to the macula densa triggers tubuloglomerular feedback, leading to afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction, decreased glomerular filtration rate, and potentially acute kidney injury. It also causes a non-anion gap hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis. Balanced solutions like Plasma-Lyte have chloride levels closer to plasma, theoretically avoiding this renal vasoconstriction and acid-base disturbance.
Given the results of the BaSICS trial showing no significant difference in mortality or AKI between balanced solutions and normal saline, how should this influence your choice of resuscitation fluid for an undifferentiated critically ill patient in the ICU?
Key Response
While BaSICS showed no overall mortality benefit for balanced solutions, fluid choice must be individualized. Normal saline remains appropriate for patients with traumatic brain injury (due to osmolarity concerns with balanced solutions) or hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis. However, balanced crystalloids may still be preferred in patients requiring massive resuscitation to avoid iatrogenic hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, even if a definitive mortality benefit isn't proven across all broad ICU populations.
The SMART trial previously demonstrated a reduction in Major Adverse Kidney Events at 30 days (MAKE30) with balanced crystalloids, whereas BaSICS found no such benefit for AKI or mortality. What key differences in study design, patient population, or fluid administration volumes between these trials might explain these divergent results?
Key Response
Key differences include the primary endpoint (MAKE30 in SMART vs. 90-day mortality in BaSICS), illness severity, and fluid volumes. In BaSICS, the median fluid volume administered was relatively low (around 1.5L on day 1), which may be insufficient to expose the nephrotoxic effects of hyperchloremia. Furthermore, BaSICS included a high proportion of elective surgical patients who have lower baseline mortality and fluid requirements compared to the predominately medical ICU populations where balanced solutions often show more benefit.
How do you use the 'negative' findings of the BaSICS trial to teach trainees about the concept of fluid stewardship and the physiological principle that 'the dose makes the poison' in ICU resuscitation?
Key Response
The BaSICS trial's low median fluid administration highlights that when restrictive fluid strategies are used, the specific biochemical composition of the crystalloid matters less. The crucial teaching point is that minimizing unnecessary fluid overload and adopting strict fluid stewardship is likely a more impactful intervention for patient survival and renal recovery than endlessly debating fluid type in low-volume scenarios.
Scholarly Review
Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development
The BaSICS trial utilized a pragmatic 2x2 factorial design to simultaneously test fluid type (balanced vs saline) and infusion rate (slow vs rapid). How does the choice of a factorial design impact the statistical power and interpretation of the main effects if an interaction between fluid type and infusion rate exists?
Key Response
A 2x2 factorial design assumes no interaction between the two interventions. If an interaction does exist (e.g., rapid infusion of saline is significantly more nephrotoxic than rapid infusion of Plasma-Lyte, but slow infusions are physiologically equal), the power to detect main effects is compromised, and interpreting the marginal effects of fluid type in isolation becomes statistically flawed. Evaluating the interaction term is critical before accepting the null hypothesis.
As a peer reviewer evaluating the BaSICS manuscript, how would you address the potential 'dilution of effect' bias given that nearly half of the enrolled patients were elective surgical admissions with a very low baseline risk of mortality?
Key Response
Including a massive cohort of low-risk elective surgical patients who receive minimal volumes of the study intervention naturally biases the results toward the null. A rigorous reviewer would flag that grouping transient post-operative patients together with severe septic shock patients dilutes the potential signal of harm from saline, potentially rendering the trial underpowered to detect a true clinical difference in the high-risk subgroups where fluid composition theoretically matters most.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines have traditionally suggested balanced crystalloids over normal saline for the initial resuscitation of septic shock. In light of the null findings from the BaSICS trial, how should the strength of recommendation and level of evidence be updated for fluid selection in sepsis?
Key Response
The addition of BaSICS (and later the PLUS trial) to the literature shifts the landscape from a weak recommendation favoring balanced solutions (driven largely by SMART/SALT-ED) to a more neutral evidence base. The committee must weigh whether the lack of harm in BaSICS downgrades the recommendation to 'use either fluid' (moderate/high certainty of no significant difference), or if meta-analyses of the sepsis-specific subgroups still justify a weak preference for balanced fluids.
Clinical Landscape
Noteworthy Related Trials
SPLIT Trial
Tested
Plasma-Lyte 148
Population
Critically ill patients requiring crystalloid fluid therapy
Comparator
0.9% saline
Endpoint
Development of acute kidney injury (AKI)
SMART Trial
Tested
Balanced crystalloids
Population
Critically ill adults in medical or surgical ICUs
Comparator
0.9% saline
Endpoint
Major Adverse Kidney Events within 30 days (MAKE30)
PLUS Trial
Tested
Plasma-Lyte 148
Population
Critically ill adults admitted to the ICU
Comparator
0.9% saline
Endpoint
90-day all-cause mortality
Tailored to your role
Want this tailored to you?
Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.
Personalize this analysis