Improving perioperative outcomes: fluid optimization with the esophageal Doppler monitor, a metaanalysis and review

Stroke volume optimization in elective bowel surgery: a comparison between pulse power wave analysis (LiDCOrapid) and oesophageal Doppler (CardioQ)

BACKGROUND

Goal-directed fluid therapy improves outcome in major surgery. We evaluated a new device (LiDCOrapid) against our standard oesophageal Doppler method (ODM) for stroke volume (SV) optimization during colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This was an observational study in 20 patients undergoing major colorectal surgery within a fast-track protocol. We compared SV values measured simultaneously by LiDCOrapid and ODM before and after 86 fluid challenges. We also evaluated the LiDCOrapid dynamic indices SV variation (SVV) and pulse pressure variation (PPV) as predictors for volume responsiveness, defined as an increase in SV ≥ 10% after 200 ml of colloid.

RESULTS

SV increased ≥ 10% after 27 out of 86 fluid challenges. For 172 paired SV values, the overall correlation was r=0.39, and bias (limits of agreement) -28 (-91-35) ml, percentage error 70%. The ability of LiDCOrapid to track changes in SV was weak with a concordance rate of 80%, and a sensitivity and specificity of 48% and 81%, respectively, to detect a positive fluid challenge. The area under the curve values (with 95% confidence intervals) for SVV and PPV were 0.72 (0.60-0.83) and 0.66 (0.52-0.79), respectively, indicating low predictive capacity in these setting.

CONCLUSIONS

LiDCOrapid and ODM devices are not interchangeable. We cannot recommend that the LiDCOrapid replace the standard Doppler method until further device-specific outcome studies on volume optimization are available. The dynamic indices SVV and PPV add little value to a fluid optimization protocol, and should not replace SV measurements with a validated technique.

Contemporary perioperative care strategies

Background

Historically, the preoperative and postoperative care of patients with gastrointestinal cancer was provided by surgeons. Contemporary perioperative care is a truly multidisciplinary endeavour with implications for cancer-specific outcomes.

Methods

A literature review was performed querying PubMed and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 1966 to 2012 on specific perioperative interventions with the potential to improve the outcomes of surgical oncology patients. Keywords used were: fast-track, enhanced recovery, accelerated rehabilitation, multimodal and perioperative care. Specific interventions included normothermia, hyperoxygenation, surgical-site infection, skin preparation, transfusion, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, laparoscopy, radiotherapy, perioperative steroids and monoclonal antibodies. Included articles had to be randomized controlled trials, prospective or nationwide series, or systematic reviews/meta-analyses, published in English, French or German.

Results

Important elements of modern perioperative care that improve recovery of patients and outcomes in surgical oncology include accelerated recovery pathways, thromboembolism and antibiotic prophylaxis, hyperoxygenation, maintenance of normothermia, avoidance of blood transfusion and cautious use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, promotion of laparoscopic surgery, chlorhexidine–alcohol skin preparation and multidisciplinary meetings to determine multimodal therapy.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary management of perioperative patient care has improved outcomes.

Additional hemodynamic measurements with an esophageal Doppler monitor: a preliminary report of compliance, force, kinetic energy, and afterload in the clinical setting

The esophageal Doppler monitor (EDM) is a minimally-invasive hemodynamic device which evaluates both cardiac output (CO), and fluid status, by estimating stroke volume (SV) and calculating heart rate (HR). The measurement of these parameters is based upon a continuous and accurate approximation of distal thoracic aortic blood flow. Furthermore, the peak velocity (PV) and mean acceleration (MA), of aortic blood flow at this anatomic location, are also determined by the EDM. The purpose of this preliminary report is to examine additional clinical hemodynamic calculations of: compliance (C), kinetic energy (KE), force (F), and afterload (TSVR(i)). These data were derived using both velocity-based measurements, provided by the EDM, as well as other contemporaneous physiologic parameters. Data were obtained from anesthetized patients undergoing surgery or who were in a critical care unit. A graphical inspection of these measurements is presented and discussed with respect to each patient's clinical situation. When normalized to each of their initial values, F and KE both consistently demonstrated more discriminative power than either PV or MA. The EDM offers additional applications for hemodynamic monitoring. Further research regarding the accuracy, utility, and limitations of these parameters is therefore indicated.

Transoesophageal echocardiography for monitoring liver surgery: data from a pilot study

A pilot study aimed to introduce intraoperative monitoring of liver surgery using transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is described. A set of TEE measurements was established as a protocol, consisting of left atrial (LA) dimension at the aortic valve plane; mitral velocity flow integral, calculation of stroke volume and cardiac output (CO); mitral annular plane systolic excursion; finally, right atrial area. A total of 165 measurements (on 21 patients) were performed, 31 occurring during hypotension. The conclusions reached were during acute blood loss LA dimension changed earlier than CVP, and, in one patient, a dynamic left ventricular (LV) obstruction was observed; in 3 patients a transient LV systolic dysfunction was documented. The comparison between 39 CO paired measurements obtained by TEE and PiCCO2 revealed a statistically significant correlation (P < 0.001, r = 0.83). In this pilot study TEE successfully answered the questions raised by the anesthesiologists. Larger cohort studies are needed to address this issue.

Perioperative fluid management strategies in major surgery: a stratified meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both "liberal" and "goal-directed" (GD) therapy use a large amount of perioperative fluid, but they appear to have very different effects on perioperative outcomes. We sought to determine whether one fluid management strategy was superior to the others.

METHODS

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of GD or restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy (LVR) in major adult surgery from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed (1951 to April 2011), and Cochrane controlled trials register without language restrictions. Indirect comparison between the GD and LVR strata was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 3861 patients from 23 GD RCTs (median sample size = 90, interquartile range [IQR] 57 to 109) and 1160 patients from 12 LVR RCTs (median sample size = 80, IQR36 to 151) were considered. Both liberal and GD therapy used more fluid compared to their respective comparative arm, but their effects on outcomes were very different. Patients in the liberal group of the LVR stratum had a higher risk of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 4.5), pulmonary edema (RR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 13), and a longer hospital stay than those in the restrictive group (mean difference [MD] 2 days, 95% CI 0.5 to 3.4). Using GD therapy also resulted in a lower risk of pneumonia (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) and renal complications (0.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9), and a shorter length of hospital stay (MD 2 days, 95% CI 1 to 3) compared to not using GD therapy. Liberal fluid therapy was associated with an increased length of hospital stay (4 days, 95% CI 3.4 to 4.4), time to first bowel movement (2 days, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3), and risk of pneumonia (RR ratio 3, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.8) compared to GD therapy.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative outcomes favored a GD therapy rather than liberal fluid therapy without hemodynamic goals. Whether GD therapy is superior to a restrictive fluid strategy remains uncertain.

Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI -8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews.

CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE

Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity.

A Comparison of Three Minimally Invasive Cardiac Output Devices with Thermodilution in Elective Cardiac Surgery

This study compared the cardiac output responses to haemodynamic interventions as measured by three minimally invasive monitors (Oesophageal Doppler Monitor, the VigileoFlotrac and the LiDCOrapid) to the responses measured concurrently using thermodilution, in cardiac surgical patients. The study also assessed the precision and bias of these monitors in relation to thermodilution measurements.

After a fluid bolus of at least 250 ml, the measured change in cardiac output was different among the devices, showing an increase with thermodilution in 82% of measurements, Oesophageal Doppler Monitor 68%, VigileoFlotrac 57% and LiDCOrapid 41%. When comparing the test devices to thermodilution, the kappa statistic showed at best only fair agreement, Oesophageal Doppler Monitor 0.34, LiDCOrapid 0.28 and VigileoFlotrac -0.03. After vasopressor administration, there was also significant variation in the change in cardiac output measured by the devices. Using Bland-Altman analysis, the precision of the devices in comparison to thermodilution showed minimal bias, but wide limits of agreement with percentage errors of Oesophageal Doppler Monitor 64.5%, VigileoFlotrac 47.6% and LiDCOrapid 54.2%. These findings indicate that these three devices differ in their responses, do not always provide the same information as thermodilution and should not be used interchangeably to track cardiac output changes.

Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Health care systems provide care to increasingly complex and elderly patients. Colorectal surgery is a prime example, with high volumes of major procedures, significant morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and unplanned readmissions. This situation is exacerbated by an exponential rise in costs that threatens the stability of health care systems. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERP) have been proposed as a means to reduce morbidity and improve effectiveness of care. We have reviewed the evidence supporting the implementation of ERP in clinical practice.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for randomized, controlled trials comparing ERP with traditional care in colorectal surgery. Systematic reviews and papers on ERP based on data published in major surgical and anesthesiology journals were critically reviewed by international contributors, experienced in the development and implementation of ERP.

RESULTS

A random-effect Bayesian meta-analysis was performed, including 6 randomized, controlled trials totalizing 452 patients. For patients adhering to ERP, length of stay decreased by 2.5 days (95% credible interval [CrI] -3.92 to -1.11), whereas 30-day morbidity was halved (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.36-0.73) and readmission was not increased (relative risk, 0.59; 95% CrI, 0.14-1.43) when compared with patients undergoing traditional care.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to ERP achieves a reproducible improvement in the quality of care by enabling standardization of health care processes. Thus, while accelerating recovery and safely reducing hospital stay, ERPs optimize utilization of health care resources. ERPs can and should be routinely used in care after colorectal and other major gastrointestinal procedures.

'Liberal' vs. 'restrictive' perioperative fluid therapy--a critical assessment of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Several studies have assessed the effect of a 'liberal' vs. a 'restrictive' perioperative fluid regimen on post-operative outcome. The literature was reviewed in order to provide recommendations regarding perioperative fluid regimens.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified randomized clinical trials and cited studies, comparing two different fixed fluid volumes on post-operative clinical outcome in major surgery. Studies were assessed for the type of surgery, primary and secondary outcome endpoints, the type and volume of administered fluid and the definition of the perioperative period. Also, information regarding perioperative care and type of anaesthesia was assessed.

RESULTS

In the seven randomized studies identified, the range of the liberal intraoperative fluid regimen was from 2750 to 5388 ml compared with 998 to 2740 ml for the restrictive fluid regimen. The period for fluid therapy and outcome endpoints were inconsistently defined and only two studies reported perioperative care principles and discharge criteria. Three studies found an improved outcome (morbidity/hospital stay) with a restrictive fluid regimen whereas two studies found no difference and two studies found differences in the selected outcome parameters.

CONCLUSION

Liberal vs. restrictive fixed-volume regimens are not well defined in the literature regarding the definition, methodology and results, and lack the use of or information on evidence-based standardized perioperative care-principles (fast-track surgery), thereby precluding evidence-based guidelines for procedure-specific perioperative fixed-volume regimens. Optimization of perioperative fluid management may include a combination of fixed crystalloid administration to replace extra-vascular losses and avoiding fluid excess, together with individualized goal-directed colloid administration to maintain a maximal stroke volume.