Effects of volumetric vs. pressure-guided fluid therapy on postoperative inflammatory response: a prospective, randomized clinical trial

Restricted Versus Liberal Versus Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy for Non-vascular Abdominal Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Optimal perioperative fluid management is crucial, with over- or under-replacement associated with complications. There are many strategies for fluid therapy, including liberal fluid therapy (LFT), restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) and goal-directed fluid therapy (GDT), without a clear consensus as to which is better. We aimed to find out which is the more effective fluid therapy option in adult surgical patients undergoing non-vascular abdominal surgery in the perioperative period. This study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) with node-splitting analysis of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. We conducted a literature search of Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Only studies comparing restrictive, liberal and goal-directed fluid therapy during the perioperative phase in major non-cardiac surgery in adult patients will be included. Trials on paediatric patients, obstetric patients and cardiac surgery were excluded. Trials that focused on goal-directed therapy monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), as well as those examining purely biochemical and laboratory end points, were excluded. A total of 102 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 78 studies (12,100 patients) were included. NMA concluded that goal-directed fluid therapy utilising FloTrac was the most effective intervention in reducing the length of stay (LOS) (surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 91%, odds ratio (OR) = -2.4, 95% credible intervals (CrI) = -3.9 to -0.85) and wound complications (SUCRA = 86%, OR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.24 to 0.69). Goal-directed fluid therapy utilising pulse pressure variation was the most effective in reducing the complication rate (SUCRA = 80%, OR = 0.25, 95% CrI = 0.047 to 1.2), renal complications (SUCRA = 93%, OR = 0.23, 95% CrI = 0.045 to 1.0), respiratory complications (SUCRA = 74%, OR = 0.42, 95% CrI = 0.053 to 3.6) and cardiac complications (SUCRA = 97%, OR = 0.067, 95% CrI = 0.0058 to 0.57). Liberal fluid therapy was the most effective in reducing the mortality rate (SUCRA = 81%, OR = 0.40, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). Goal-directed therapy utilising oesophageal Doppler was the most effective in reducing anastomotic leak (SUCRA = 79%, OR = 0.45, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). There was no publication bias, but moderate to substantial heterogeneity was found in all networks. In preventing different complications, except mortality, goal-directed fluid therapy was consistently more highly ranked and effective than standard (SFT), liberal or restricted fluid therapy. The evidence grade was low quality to very low quality for all the results, except those for wound complications and anastomotic leak.

The effect of intraoperative goal-directed crystalloid versus colloid administration on perioperative inflammatory markers - a substudy of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Excessive perioperative fluid administration may result in iatrogenic endothelial dysfunction and tissue edema, transducing inflammatory markers into the bloodstream. Colloids remain longer in the circulation, requiring less volume to reach similar hemodynamic endpoints compared to crystalloids. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that a goal-directed colloid regimen attenuates the inflammatory response compared to a goal-directed crystalloid regime.

Methods

Patients undergoing moderate- to high-risk open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to goal-directed lactated Ringer’s solution (n = 58) or a hydroxyethyl starch 6% 130/0.4 (n = 62) fluid regimen. Our primary outcome was perioperative levels of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Secondary outcome was perioperative levels of white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP). Measurements were performed preoperatively, immediate postoperatively, on postoperative day one, two and four.

Results

The areas under the curve of Interleukin (IL) 6 (p = 0.60), IL 8 (p = 0.46), IL 10 (p = 0.68) and tumor necrosis factor α (p = 0.47) levels did not differ significantly between the groups. WBC, CRP and PCT values were also comparable. LBP, although significantly higher in the crystalloid group, remained in the normal range. Patients assigned to crystalloids received a median (IQR) amount of 3905 mL (2880–5288) of crystalloid. Patients assigned to colloids received 1557 mL (1207–2116) of crystalloid and 1250 mL (750–1938) of colloid.

Conclusion

Cytokine and inflammatory marker levels did not differ between goal-directed crystalloid and colloid administration after moderate to high-risk abdominal surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00517127). Registered 16th August 2007.

Contemporary hemodynamic monitoring, fluid responsiveness, volume optimization, and endpoints of resuscitation: an AAST critical care committee clinical consensus

This article, on hemodynamic monitoring, fluid responsiveness, volume assessment, and endpoints of resuscitation, is part of a compendium of guidelines provided by the AAST (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma) critical care committee. The intention of these guidelines is to inform practitioners with practical clinical guidance. To do this effectively and contemporarily, expert consensus via the critical care committee was obtained. Strict guideline methodology such a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was purposefully NOT used so as not to limit the possible clinical guidance. The critical care committee foresees this methodology as practically valuable to the bedside clinician.

Perioperative goal-directed therapy: A systematic review without meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Perioperative goal-directed therapy aims to optimise haemodynamics by titrating fluids, vasopressors and/or inotropes to predefined haemodynamic targets. Perioperative goal-directed therapy is a complex intervention composed of several independent component interventions. Trials on perioperative goal-directed therapy show conflicting results. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of perioperative goal-directed therapy.

METHODS

PubMED, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched. Trials were included if they had a perioperative goal-directed therapy protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The first secondary outcome was serious adverse events excluding mortality. Risk of bias was assessed, and GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve randomised trials were included of which one trial (1%) had low risk of bias. Included trials varied in patients: types of surgery which was expected due to inclusion criteria; in intervention and comparison: timing of intervention, monitoring devices, haemodynamic variables, target values, use of fluids, vasopressors and/or inotropes as well as combinations of these within protocols; and in outcome: mortality was reported in 87 trials (78%). Due to substantial clinical heterogeneity also within the various types of surgery a meta-analysis of data, including subgroup analyses, as defined in our protocol was considered inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

Clinical heterogeneity in patients, interventions and outcomes in perioperative goal-directed therapy trials is too large to perform meta-analysis on all trials. Future trials and meta-analyses highly depend on universally agreed definitions on aspects beyond type of surgery of the complex intervention and its evaluation.

Effect of perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy on postoperative recovery following major abdominal surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) has been used in the clinical setting for years. However, the evidence for the beneficial effect of GDHT on postoperative recovery remains inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of perioperative GDHT in comparison with conventional fluid therapy on postoperative recovery in adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers evaluated the effect of perioperative use of GDHT on postoperative recovery in comparison with conventional fluid therapy following abdominal surgery in adults (i.e., >16 years) were considered. The effect sizes with 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-five eligible RCTs were included. Perioperative GDHT was associated with a significant reduction in short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.91, p = 0.004, I ² = 0), long-term mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04, I ² = 4%), and overall complication rates (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85, p < 0.0001, I ² = 38%). GDHT also facilitated gastrointestinal function recovery, as demonstrated by shortening the time to first flatus by 0.4 days (95% CI -0.72 to -0.08, p = 0.01, I ² = 74%) and the time to toleration of oral diet by 0.74 days (95% CI -1.44 to -0.03, p < 0.0001, I ² = 92%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of available evidence suggests that the use of perioperative GDHT may facilitate recovery in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Targeting urine output and 30-day mortality in goal-directed therapy: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

Background

Oliguria is associated with a decreased kidney- and organ perfusion, leading to organ damage and increased mortality. While the effects of correcting oliguria on renal outcome have been investigated frequently, whether urine output is a modifiable risk factor for mortality or simply an epiphenomenon remains unclear. We investigated whether targeting urine output, defined as achieving and maintaining urine output above a predefined threshold, in hemodynamic management protocols affects 30-day mortality in perioperative and critical care.

Methods

We performed a systematic review with a random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression based on search strategy through MEDLINE, EMBASE and references in relevant articles. We included studies comparing conventional fluid management with goal-directed therapy and reporting whether urine output was used as target or not, and reporting 30-day mortality data in perioperative and critical care.

Results

We found 36 studies in which goal-directed therapy reduced 30-day mortality (OR 0.825; 95% CI 0.684-0.995; P = 0.045). Targeting urine output within goal-directed therapy increased 30-day mortality (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.06-6.67; P = 0.037), but not in conventional fluid management (OR 1.77; 95% CI 0.59-5.34; P = 0.305). After adjusting for operative setting, hemodynamic monitoring device, underlying etiology, use of vasoactive medication and year of publication, we found insufficient evidence to associate targeting urine output with a change in 30-day mortality (goal-directed therapy: OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.54-2.56; P = 0.685; conventional fluid management: OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.39-1.38; P = 0.334).

Conclusions

The principal finding of this meta-analysis is that after adjusting for confounders, there is insufficient evidence to associate targeting urine output with an effect on 30-day mortality. The paucity of direct data illustrates the need for further research on whether permissive oliguria should be a key component of fluid management protocols.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-017-0316-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Stroke volume optimization: the new hemodynamic algorithm

Critical care practices have evolved to rely more on physical assessments for monitoring cardiac output and evaluating fluid volume status because these assessments are less invasive and more convenient to use than is a pulmonary artery catheter. Despite this trend, level of consciousness, central venous pressure, urine output, heart rate, and blood pressure remain assessments that are slow to be changed, potentially misleading, and often manifested as late indications of decreased cardiac output. The hemodynamic optimization strategy called stroke volume optimization might provide a proactive guide for clinicians to optimize a patient's status before late indications of a worsening condition occur. The evidence supporting use of the stroke volume optimization algorithm to treat hypovolemia is increasing. Many of the cardiac output monitor technologies today measure stroke volume, as well as the parameters that comprise stroke volume: preload, afterload, and contractility.

Evidence-based fluid management in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Evidence-based fluid therapy is complicated by blurred boundaries toward other fields of therapy and the majority of trials not focusing on patient-relevant outcomes. Additionally, recent trials unsettled the faith in traditional concepts on fluid therapy. The article reviews the evidence on diagnosis and treatment of hypovolemia and discusses the use of balanced solutions and early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in septic shock resuscitation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hypovolemia should be diagnosed and its treatment guided by a multifaceted approach, including medical history, physical examination, volume responsiveness, and technical parameters - dynamic indicators, volumetric indicators, sonography, and metabolic indicators. Central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure should be avoided. In ICU patients, balanced crystalloids should primarily be used, because unbalanced infusions (especially saline) cause hyperchloremic acidosis which is associated with renal impairment and infections. Colloids are beneficial to restore blood volume rapidly. Hydroxyethyl starch may be harmful although the validity of the respective recent studies is limited by methodological flaws. Early aggressive fluid therapy is still beneficial in septic shock resuscitation, despite recent trials challenging the EGDT concept. Today, 10 years after Rivers, 'usual care' includes aggressive fluid resuscitation that is as effective as formal EGDT.

SUMMARY

Evidence-based fluid therapy includes a multifaceted diagnostic approach, the primary use of balanced crystalloids and early aggressive (septic) shock resuscitation.

Goal directed fluid therapy decreases postoperative morbidity but not mortality in major non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Optimum perioperative fluid administration may improve postoperative outcome after major surgery. This meta-analysis and systematic review has been aimed to determine the effect of dynamic goal directed fluid therapy (GDFT) on postoperative morbidity and mortality in non-cardiac surgical patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Meta-analysis of published prospective randomized controlled trials where GDFT based on non-invasive flow based hemodynamic measurement has been compared with a standard care. Data from 41 prospective randomized trials have been included in this study.

RESULTS

Use of GDFT in major surgical patients does not decrease postoperative hospital/30-day mortality (OR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.46-1.08, p = 0.11) length of post-operative hospital stay (SMD -0.14; 95 % CI -0.28, 0.00; p = 0.05) and length of ICU stay (SMD -0.12; 95 % CI -0.28, 0.04; p = 0.14). However, number of patients having at least one postoperative complication is significantly lower with use of GDFT (OR 0.57; 95 % CI 0.43, 0.75; p < 0.0001). Abdominal complications (p = 0.008), wound infection (p = 0.002) and postoperative hypotension (p = 0.04) are also decreased with used of GDFT as opposed to a standard care. Though patients who received GDFT were infused more colloid (p < 0.0001), there is no increased risk of heart failure or pulmonary edema and renal failure.

CONCLUSION

GDFT in major non- cardiac surgical patients has questionable benefit over a standard care in terms of postoperative mortality, length of hospital stay and length of ICU stay. However, incidence of all complications including wound infection, abdominal complications and postoperative hypotension is reduced.

Exploring hemodynamics: a review of current and emerging noninvasive monitoring techniques

The lack of randomized controlled trials suggesting improved outcomes with pulmonary artery catheter use and pressure-based hemodynamic monitoring has led to a decrease in pulmonary artery catheter use. However, an increasing amount of literature supporting stroke volume optimization (SVO) has caused a paradigm shift from pressure-based to flow-based techniques. This article discusses emerging flow-based techniques, supporting evidence, and considerations for use in critical care for methods such as Doppler, pulse contour, bioimpedance, bioreactance, and exhaled carbon dioxide. Regardless of the device chosen, the SVO algorithm approach should be considered, and volume challenges should be guided by dynamic assessments of fluid responsiveness.

Continuous central venous oxygen saturation assisted intraoperative hemodynamic management during major abdominal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial

Background

Major abdominal surgery is associated with significant risk of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period. Optimising intraoperative fluid administration may result in improved outcomes. Our aim was to compare the effects of central venous pressure (CVP), and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂)-assisted fluid therapy on postoperative complications in patients undergoing high risk surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery were randomised into control and ScvO₂ groups. The target level of mean arterial pressure (MAP) was ≥ 60 mmHg in both groups. In cases of MAP < 60 mmHg patients received either a fluid or vasopressor bolus according to the CVP < 8 mmHg in the control group. In the ScvO₂ group, in addition to the MAP, an ScvO₂ of <75 % or a >3 % decrease indicated need for intervention, regardless of the actual MAP. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range).

Results

We observed a lower number of patients with complications in the ScvO₂ group compared to the control group, however it did not reach statistical significance (ScvO₂ group: 10 vs. control group: 19; p = 0.07). Patients in the ScvO₂ group (n = 38) received more colloids compared to the control group (n = 41) [279(161) vs. 107(250) ml/h; p < 0.001]. Both groups received similar amounts of crystalloid (1126 ± 471 vs. 1049 ± 431 ml/h; p = 0.46) and norepinephrine [37(107) vs. 18(73) mcg/h; p = 0.84]. Despite similar blood loss in both groups, the ScvO₂ group received more blood transfusions (63 % vs. 37 %; p = 0.018). More patients in the control group had a postoperative PaO₂/FiO₂ < 200 mmHg (23 vs. 10, p < 0.01). Twenty eight day survival was significantly higher in the ScvO₂ group (37/38 vs. 33/41 p = 0.018).

Conclusion

ScvO₂-assisted intraoperative haemodynamic support provided some benefits, including significantly better postoperative oxygenation and 28 day survival rate, compared to CVP-assisted therapy without a significant effect on postoperative complications during major abdominal surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02337010.

Cardiac complications associated with goal-directed therapy in high-risk surgical patients: a meta-analysis

Patients with limited cardiopulmonary reserve are at risk of mortality and morbidity after major surgery. Augmentation of oxygen delivery index (DO2I) with i.v. fluids and inotropes (goal-directed therapy, GDT) has been shown to reduce postoperative mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients. Concerns regarding cardiac complications associated with fluid challenges and inotropes may prevent clinicians from performing GDT in patients who need it most. We hypothesized that GDT is not associated with an increased risk of cardiac complications in high-risk, non-cardiac surgical patients. We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of GDT in high-risk surgical patients. Studies including cardiac surgery, trauma, and paediatric surgery were excluded. We reviewed the rates of all cardiac complications, arrhythmias, myocardial ischaemia, and acute pulmonary oedema. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan software. Data are presented as odds ratios (ORs), [95% confidence intervals (CIs)], and P-values. Twenty-two RCTs including 2129 patients reported cardiac complications. GDT was associated with a reduction in total cardiovascular (CVS) complications [OR=0.54, (0.38-0.76), P=0.0005] and arrhythmias [OR=0.54, (0.35-0.85), P=0.007]. GDT was not associated with an increase in acute pulmonary oedema [OR=0.69, (0.43-1.10), P=0.12] or myocardial ischaemia [OR=0.70, (0.38-1.28), P=0.25]. Subgroup analysis revealed the benefit is most pronounced in patients receiving fluid and inotrope therapy to achieve a supranormal DO2I, with the use of minimally invasive cardiac output monitors. Treatment of high-risk surgical patients GDT is not associated with an increased risk of cardiac complications; GDT with fluids and inotropes to optimize DO2I during early GDT reduces postoperative CVS complications.

Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups

Patients with limited cardiac reserve are less likely to survive and develop more complications following major surgery. By augmenting oxygen delivery index (DO₂I) with a combination of intravenous fluids and inotropes (goal directed therapy (GDT)), postoperative mortality and morbidity of high-risk patients may be reduced. However, although most studies suggest that GDT may improve outcome in high-risk surgical patients, it is still not widely practiced. We set out to test the hypothesis that GDT results in greatest benefit in terms of mortality and morbidity in patients with the highest risk of mortality and have undertaken a systematic review of the current literature to see if this is correct. We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews of GDT in surgical patients. To minimize heterogeneity we excluded studies involving cardiac, trauma, and paediatric surgery. Extremely high risk, high risk and intermediate risks of mortality were defined as >20%, 5 to 20% and <5% mortality rates in the control arms of the trials, respectively. Meta analyses were performed and Forest plots drawn using RevMan software. Data are presented as odd ratios (OR; 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P-values). A total of 32 RCTs including 2,808 patients were reviewed. All studies reported mortality. Five studies (including 300 patients) were excluded from assessment of complication rates as the number of patients with complications was not reported. The mortality benefit of GDT was confined to the extremely high-risk group (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; P < 0.0001). Complication rates were reduced in all subgroups (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; P < 0.00001). The morbidity benefit was greatest amongst patients in the extremely high-risk subgroup (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; P < 0.0001), followed by the intermediate risk subgroup (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; P = 0.0002), and the high-risk subgroup (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89; P = 0.01). Despite heterogeneity in trial quality and design, we found GDT to be beneficial in all high-risk patients undergoing major surgery. The mortality benefit of GDT was confined to the subgroup of patients at extremely high risk of death. The reduction of complication rates was seen across all subgroups of GDT patients.

Development and feasibility study of an algorithm for intraoperative goaldirected haemodynamic management in noncardiac surgery

This study developed an evidence-based, goal-directed haemodynamic management algorithm to standardize intraoperative haemodynamic therapy. A systematic literature search identified three haemodynamic management goals: stroke volume optimization by fluid therapy; maintenance of a target mean arterial pressure by vasopressor therapy; maintenance of a target cardiac index≥2.5 l/min per m2 by inotropic therapy. The algorithm was adapted to international standards and consensus was reached through a modified Delphi method at international meetings. Implementation of the algorithm into routine intraoperative management in noncardiac surgery was shown to be feasible. Compared with conventional haemodynamic management, use of the algorithm significantly reduced length of hospital stay, requirement for ventilation and incidence of prolonged hospital stay, thereby resulting in reduced hospital costs.

Perioperative increase in global blood flow to explicit defined goals and outcomes following surgery

BACKGROUND

Studies have suggested that increasing whole body blood flow and oxygen delivery around the time of surgery reduces mortality, morbidity and the expense of major operations.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the effects of increasing perioperative blood flow using fluids with or without inotropes or vasoactive drugs. Outcomes were mortality, morbidity, resource utilization and health status.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2012) and EMBASE (1982 to March 2012). We manually searched the proceedings of major conferences and personal reference databases up to December 2011. We contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies for published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials with or without blinding. We included studies involving adult patients (aged 16 years or older) undergoing surgery (patients having a procedure in an operating room). The intervention met the following criteria. 'Perioperative' was defined as starting up to 24 hours before surgery and stopping up to six hours after surgery. 'Targeted to increase global blood flow' was defined by explicit measured goals that were greater than in controls, specifically one or more of cardiac index, oxygen delivery, oxygen consumption, stroke volume (and the respective derived indices), mixed venous oxygen saturation (SVO(2)), oxygen extraction ratio (0(2)ER) or lactate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data. We contacted study authors for additional data. We used Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies of 5292 participants. There was no difference in mortality: 282/2615 (10.8%) died in the control group and 238/2677 (8.9%) in the treatment group, RR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, P = 0.18). However, the results were sensitive to analytical methods and the intervention was better than control when inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models were used, RR of 0.72 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.95, P = 0.02). The results were also sensitive to withdrawal of studies with methodological limitations. The rates of three morbidities were reduced by increasing global blood flow: renal failure, RR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.90); respiratory failure, RR of 0.51 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.93); and wound infections, RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.84). There were no differences in the rates of nine other morbidities: arrhythmia, pneumonia, sepsis, abdominal infection, urinary tract infection, myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure or pulmonary oedema, or venous thrombosis. The number of patients with complications was reduced by the intervention, RR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.80). Hospital length of stay was reduced in the treatment group by a mean of 1.16 days (95% CI 0.43 to 1.89, P = 0.002). There was no difference in critical care length of stay. There were insufficient data to comment on quality of life and cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It remains uncertain whether increasing blood flow using fluids, with or without inotropes or vasoactive drugs, reduces mortality in adults undergoing surgery. The primary analysis in this review (mortality at longest follow-up) showed no difference between the intervention and control, but this result was sensitive to the method of analysis, the withdrawal of studies with methodological limitations, and is dominated by a single large RCT. Overall, for every 100 patients in whom blood flow is increased perioperatively to defined goals, one can expect 13 in 100 patients (from 40/100 to 27/100) to avoid a complication, 2/100 to avoid renal impairment (from 8/100 to 6/100), 5/100 to avoid respiratory failure (from 10/100 to 5/100), and 4/100 to avoid postoperative wound infection (from 10/100 to 6/100). On average, patients receiving the intervention stay in hospital one day less. It is unlikely that the intervention causes harm. The balance of current evidence does not support widespread implementation of this approach to reduce mortality but does suggest that complications and duration of hospital stay are reduced.

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.

[Haemodynamic monitoring in the perioperative phase. Available systems, practical application and clinical data]

A regular hydration status and compensated vascular filling are targets of perioperative fluid and volume management and, in parallel, represent precautions for sufficient stroke volume and cardiac output to maintain tissue oxygenation. The physiological and pathophysiological effects of fluid and volume replacement mainly depend on the pharmacological properties of the solutions used, the magnitude of the applied volume as well as the timing of volume replacement during surgery. In the perioperative setting surgical stress induces physiological and hormonal adaptations of the body, which in conjunction with an increased permeability of the vascular endothelial layer influence fluid and volume management. The target of haemodynamic monitoring in the operation room is to collect data on haemodynamics and global oxygen transport, which enable the anaesthetist to estimate the volume status of the vascular system. Particularly in high risk patients this may improve fluid and volume therapy with respect to maintaining cardiac output. A goal-directed volume management aiming at preventing hypovolaemia may improve the outcome after surgery. The objective of this article is to review the monitoring devices that are currently used to assess haemodynamics and filling status in the perioperative setting. Methods and principles for measuring haemodynamic variables, the measured and calculated parameters as well as clinical benefits and shortcomings of each device are described. Furthermore, the results for monitoring devices from clinical studies of goal-directed fluid and volume therapy which have been published will be discussed.

Systematic review of the literature for the use of oesophageal Doppler monitor for fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery

The use of intra-operative Doppler oesophageal probes provides continuous monitoring of cardiac output. This enables optimisation of intravascular volume and tissue perfusion in major abdominal surgery, which is thought to reduce postoperative complications and shorten hospital stay. Medline and EMBASE were searched using the standard methodology of the Cochrane collaboration for trials that compared oesophageal Doppler monitoring with conventional clinical parameters for fluid replacement in patients undergoing major elective abdominal surgery. Data from randomised controlled trials were entered and analysed in Meta-view in Rev-Man 4.2 (Nordic, Denmark). We included five studies that recruited 420 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery who were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous fluid treatment guided by monitoring ventricular filling using oesophageal Doppler monitor or fluid administration according to conventional parameters. Pooled analysis showed a reduced hospital stay in the intervention group. Overall, there were fewer complications and ICU admissions, and less requirement for inotropes in the intervention group. Return of normal gastro-intestinal function was also significantly faster in the intervention group. Oesophageal Doppler use for monitoring and optimisation of flow-related haemodynamic variables improves short-term outcome in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.