Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture

Liberal intraoperative fluid management leads to increased complication rates in geriatric patients with hip fracture

PURPOSE

Fractures of the proximal femur in geriatric patients are life-changing and life-threatening events. Previous research has identified fluid volume as an independent factor contributing to trauma patients' complications. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of intraoperative fluid volume on outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study with data from the hospital information systems. Our study included patients aged 70 years or older who had sustained a proximal femur fracture. We excluded patients with pathologic, periprosthetic, or peri-implant fractures and those with missing data. Based on the fluids given, we divided patients into high-volume and low-volume groups.

RESULTS

Patients with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and more comorbidities were more likely to receive more than 1500 ml of fluids. We observed significant differences in anesthesiologic management between the two groups, with a higher rate of invasive blood pressure management (IBP) and central venous catheter usage in the high-volume group. High-volume therapy was associated with a higher rate of complications (69.7% vs. 43.6%, p < 0.01), a higher transfusion rate (odds ratio 1.91 [1.26-2.91]), and an increased likelihood of patients being transferred to an intensive care unit (17.1% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.009). These findings were confirmed after adjusting for ASA grade, age, sex, type of fracture, Identification-of-Seniors-At-Risk (ISAR) score, and intraoperative blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that intraoperative fluid volume is a significant factor that impacts the outcome of hip fracture surgery in geriatric patients. High-volume therapy was associated with increased complications.

Interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Following hip fracture, people sustain an acute blood loss caused by the injury and subsequent surgery. Because the majority of hip fractures occur in older adults, blood loss may be compounded by pre-existing anaemia. Allogenic blood transfusions (ABT) may be given before, during, and after surgery to correct chronic anaemia or acute blood loss. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit-risk ratio for ABT. This is a potentially scarce resource, with availability of blood products sometimes uncertain. Other strategies from Patient Blood Management may prevent or minimise blood loss and avoid administration of ABT.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, administered perioperatively, on reducing blood loss, anaemia, and the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

In January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions given to prevent or minimise blood loss, treat the effects of anaemia, and reduce the need for ABT, in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. We searched for pharmacological interventions (fibrinogen, factor VIIa and factor XIII, desmopressin, antifibrinolytics, fibrin and non-fibrin sealants and glue, agents to reverse the effects of anticoagulants, erythropoiesis agents, iron, vitamin B12, and folate replacement therapy) and non-pharmacological interventions (surgical approaches to reduce or manage blood loss, intraoperative cell salvage and autologous blood transfusion, temperature management, and oxygen therapy). We used Cochrane methodology, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2. We assessed the degree of overlap of RCTs between reviews. Because overlap was very high, we used a hierarchical approach to select reviews from which to report data; we compared the findings of selected reviews with findings from the other reviews. Outcomes were: number of people requiring ABT, volume of transfused blood (measured as units of packed red blood cells (PRC)), postoperative delirium, adverse events, activities of daily living (ADL), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 26 systematic reviews including 36 RCTs (3923 participants), which only evaluated tranexamic acid and iron. We found no reviews of other pharmacological interventions or any non-pharmacological interventions. Tranexamic acid (17 reviews, 29 eligible RCTs) We selected reviews with the most recent search date, and which included data for the most outcomes. The methodological quality of these reviews was low. However, the findings were largely consistent across reviews. One review included 24 RCTs, with participants who had internal fixation or arthroplasty for different types of hip fracture. Tranexamic acid was given intravenously or topically during the perioperative period. In this review, based on a control group risk of 451 people per 1000, 194 fewer people per 1000 probably require ABT after receiving tranexamic acid (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.68; 21 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty for possible publication bias. Review authors found that there was probably little or no difference in the risks of adverse events, reported as deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.81; 22 studies), pulmonary embolism (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.86; 9 studies), myocardial infarction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.33; 8 studies), cerebrovascular accident (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.70; 8 studies), or death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.46; 10 studies). We judged evidence from these outcomes to be moderate certainty, downgraded for imprecision. Another review, with a similarly broad inclusion criteria, included 10 studies, and found that tranexamic acid probably reduces the volume of transfused PRC (0.53 fewer units, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.80; 7 studies, 813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty because of unexplained high levels of statistical heterogeneity. No reviews reported outcomes of postoperative delirium, ADL, or HRQoL. Iron (9 reviews, 7 eligible RCTs) Whilst all reviews included studies in hip fracture populations, most also included other surgical populations. The most current, direct evidence was reported in two RCTs, with 403 participants with hip fracture; iron was given intravenously, starting preoperatively. This review did not include evidence for iron with erythropoietin. The methodological quality of this review was low. In this review, there was low-certainty evidence from two studies (403 participants) that there may be little or no difference according to whether intravenous iron was given in: the number of people who required ABT (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11), the volume of transfused blood (MD -0.07 units of PRC, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.17), infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13). There may be little or no difference in delirium (25 events in the iron group compared to 26 events in control group; 1 study, 303 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very unsure whether there was any difference in HRQoL, since it was reported without an effect estimate. The findings were largely consistent across reviews. We downgraded the evidence for imprecision, because studies included few participants, and the wide CIs indicated possible benefit and harm. No reviews reported outcomes of cognitive dysfunction, ADL, or HRQoL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tranexamic acid probably reduces the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, and there is probably little or no difference in adverse events. For iron, there may be little or no difference in overall clinical effects, but this finding is limited by evidence from only a few small studies. Reviews of these treatments did not adequately include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), and evidence for their effectiveness remains incomplete. We were unable to effectively explore the impact of timing and route of administration between reviews. A lack of systematic reviews for other types of pharmacological or any non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the need for ABT indicates a need for further evidence syntheses to explore this. Methodologically sound evidence syntheses should include PROMS within four months of surgery.

[Comments on the updated German S3 guidelines on intravascular volume therapy in adults]

The German S3 guidelines on intravascular volume therapy in adults were updated in September 2020. Based on updated evidence recommendations for the diagnosis of isotonic dehydration and for fluid therapy with crystalloids and colloids in peri-interventional and intensive care medicine were proposed.

Attributable Mortality of Hip Fracture in Older Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study

Hip fracture (HF) in older patients is associated with a high six-month mortality rate. Several clinical conditions may affect outcome, including baseline characteristics, co-existing acute illnesses, perioperative factors, and postoperative complications. Our primary objective was to estimate the respective effect of these four domains on six-month mortality after HF. A retrospective observational study using a monocentric cohort of older patients was conducted. All patients ≥ 70 years old admitted to the emergency department for HF and hospitalized in our perioperative geriatric care unit from June 2009 to September 2018 were included. Among 1015 included patients, five (0.5%) were lost to follow-up, and 1010 were retained in the final analysis (mean age 86 ± 6 years). The six-month mortality rate was 14.8%. The six-month attributable mortality estimates were as follows: baseline characteristics (including age, gender, comorbidities, autonomy, type of fracture): 62.4%; co-existing acute illnesses (including acute events present before surgery that could result from the fracture or cause it): 0% (not significantly associated with six-month mortality); perioperative factors (including blood transfusion and delayed surgery): 12.3%; severe postoperative complications: 11.9%. Baseline characteristics explained less than two-thirds of the six-month mortality after HF. Optimizing patients care by improving management of perioperative factors and thus decreasing postoperative complications, could reduce by a maximum of one quarter of the six-month mortality rate after HF.

Cardiac overscreening hip fracture patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the adherence to the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association guidelines for perioperative assessment of patients with hip fracture in daily clinical practice and how this might affect outcome.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study from Maastricht University Medical Centre included 166 hip fracture patients within a 3-year inclusion period. The preoperative cardiac screening and adherence to the ACC/AHA guideline were analyzed. Cardiac risk was classified as low, intermediate and high risk. Secondary outcome measurements were delay to surgery, perioperative complications and in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year and 2-year mortality.

RESULTS

According to the ACC/AHA guideline, 87% of patients received correct preoperative cardiac screening. The most important reason for incorrect preoperative cardiac screening was overscreening (> 90%). Multivariate analysis showed that a cardiac consultation (p = 0.003) and overscreening (p = 0.02) as significant predictors for increased delay to surgery, while age, sex, previous cardiac history and preoperative mobility were not. High risk patients had in comparison with low risk patients a significantly higher relative risk ratio for in-hospital mortality (RR 6, 95% CI 2-17). Multivariate analysis showed that a previous cardiac history and increased delay to surgery were predictors for early mortality. High age and previous cardiac history were risk factors for late mortality.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative cardiac screening for hip fracture patients in adherence to the ACC/AHA guideline is associated with a diminished use of preoperative resources. Overscreening leads to greater delay to surgery, which poses a risk for perioperative complications and early mortality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Perioperative multi-system optimization protocol in elderly hip fracture patients: a randomized-controlled trial

PURPOSE

Hip fractures in elderly patients are associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. We evaluated whether a perioperative multi-system optimization protocol can reduce postoperative complications in these patients.

METHODS

Immediately after diagnosis of hip fracture, patients ≥ 60 yr were randomized to an intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group were admitted to our postanesthesia care unit where they were treated with goal-directed hemodynamic management, optimized pain therapy, oxygen therapy, and optimized nutrition. Patients in the control group were managed according to our usual standard of care on a regular ward. Postoperative complications during hospital stay included pre-determined cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, renal, or surgical events.

RESULTS

The incidence of at least one postoperative complication (primary outcome) was seen in 32 of 65 (49%) controls compared with 24 of 62 (39%) in the intervention group (relative risk [RR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 1.17; P = 0.23). The secondary unadjusted outcomes showed that patients in the intervention group received more Ringer's acetate compared with controls (median difference, 1.3 L; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.1 L; P < 0.001), had more frequently a mean arterial pressure > 70 mmHg (57% control vs 75% intervention; median percentage difference, 16%; 95% CI, 7 to 25%; P = 0.001), better pain control (numeric rating scale < 4 at all postoperative measurements; 25% control vs 81% intervention; RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.43; P < 0.001), and possibly a lower incidence of acute renal failure (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.98; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a perioperative multi-system optimization protocol algorithm did not significantly reduce the risk of postoperative complications. Nevertheless, we likely over-estimated the potential treatment effect in our study design and thus were under-powered to show an effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01673776). Registered 23 August, 2012.

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people

BACKGROUND

Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.

Surgical Technical Evidence Review of Hip Fracture Surgery Conducted for the AHRQ Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery

Background:

Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have been shown to improve patient outcomes in a variety of contexts. This review summarizes the evidence and defines a protocol for perioperative care of patients with hip fracture and was conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality safety program for improving surgical care and recovery.

Study Design:

Perioperative care was divided into components or “bins.” For each bin, a semisystematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE with priority given to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Observational studies were included when higher levels of evidence were not available. Existing guidelines for perioperative care were also incorporated. For convenience, the components of care that are under the auspices of anesthesia providers will be reported separately. Recommendations for an evidence-based protocol were synthesized based on review of this evidence.

Results:

Eleven bins were identified. Preoperative risk factor bins included nutrition, diabetes mellitus, tobacco use, and anemia. Perioperative management bins included thromboprophylaxis, timing of surgery, fluid management, drain placement, early mobilization, early alimentation, and discharge criteria/planning.

Conclusions:

This review provides the evidence basis for an ERP for perioperative care of patients with hip fracture.