Early goal-directed therapy based on endotracheal bioimpedance cardiography: a prospective, randomized controlled study in coronary surgery

Intraoperative Goal-Directed Perfusion in Cardiac Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass: The Roles of Delivery Oxygen Index and Cardiac Index

PURPOSE

Goal-directed perfusion (GDP) refers to individualized goal-directed therapy using comprehensive monitoring and optimizing the delivery of oxygen during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). This study aims to determine whether the intraoperative GDP protocol method has better outcomes compared to conventional methods.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Central, and Scopus databases up to October 12, 2023. We primarily examined the GDP protocol in adult cardiac surgery, using CPB with oxygen delivery index (DO2I) and cardiac index (CI) as the main parameters.

RESULTS

In all, 1128 participants from seven studies were included in our analysis. The results showed significant differences in the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stays (p = 0.01), with a mean difference of -0.33 (-0.59 to 0.07), and hospital length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.0002), with a mean difference of -0.84 (-1.29 to -0.39). There was also a notable reduction in postoperative complications (p <0.00001), odds ratio (OR) of 0.43 (0.32-0.60). However, there was no significant decrease in mortality rate (p = 0.54), OR of 0.77 (0.34-1.77).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative acute kidney injury and ICU and hospital LOS are significantly reduced when GDP protocols with indicators of flow management, oxygen delivery index, and CI are used in intraoperative cardiac surgery using CPB.

Advanced artificial intelligence-guided hemodynamic management within cardiac enhanced recovery after surgery pathways: A multi-institution review

Objective

The study objective was to report early outcomes of integrating Hypotension Prediction Index-guided hemodynamic management within a cardiac enhanced recovery pathway on total initial ventilation hours and length of stay in the intensive care unit.

Methods

A multicenter, historical control, observational analysis of implementation of a hemodynamic management tool within enhanced recovery pathways was conducted by identifying cardiac surgery cases from 3 sites during 2 time periods, August 1 to December 31, 2019 (preprogram), and April 1 to August 31, 2021 (program). Reoperations, emergency (salvage), or cases requiring mechanical assist were excluded. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and chart reviews. Two primary outcome variables were length of stay in the intensive care unit (using Society of Thoracic Surgeons definitions) and acute kidney injury (using modified Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria). One secondary outcome variable, total initial ventilation hours, used Society of Thoracic Surgeons definitions. Differences in length of stay in the intensive care unit and total ventilation time were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and stepwise multiple linear regression. Acute kidney injury stage used chi-square and stepwise cumulative logistic regression.

Results

A total of 1404 cases (795 preprogram; 609 program) were identified. Overall reductions of 6.8 and 4.4 hours in intensive care unit length of stay (P = .08) and ventilation time (P = .03) were found, respectively. No significant association between proportion of patients identified with acute kidney injury by stage and period was found.

Conclusions

Adding artificial intelligence-guided hemodynamic management to cardiac enhanced recovery pathways resulted in associated reduced time in the intensive care unit for patients undergoing nonemergency cardiac surgery across institutions in a real-world setting.

Guidelines on enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass or off-pump

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations for enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery (ERACS) based on a multimodal perioperative medicine approach in adult cardiac surgery patients with the aim of improving patient satisfaction, reducing postoperative mortality and morbidity, and reducing the length of hospital stay.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 20 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation, SFAR) and the French Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (Société française de chirurgie thoracique et cardio-vasculaire, SFCTCV) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide the assessment of the quality of evidence.

METHODS

Six fields were defined: (1) selection of the patient pathway and its information; (2) preoperative management and rehabilitation; (3) anaesthesia and analgesia for cardiac surgery; (4) surgical strategy for cardiac surgery and bypass management; (5) patient blood management; and (6) postoperative enhanced recovery. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer questions formulated according to the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out and analyses were performed using the GRADE approach. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method.

RESULTS

The SFAR/SFCTCV guideline panel provided 33 recommendations on the management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass or off-pump. After three rounds of voting and several amendments, a strong agreement was reached for the 33 recommendations. Of these recommendations, 10 have a high level of evidence (7 GRADE 1+ and 3 GRADE 1-); 19 have a moderate level of evidence (15 GRADE 2+ and 4 GRADE 2-); and 4 are expert opinions. Finally, no recommendations were provided for 3 questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among the experts to provide recommendations to optimise the complete perioperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Effect of hemodialysis on impedance cardiography (electrical velocimetry) parameters in children

BACKGROUND

Pediatric hemodialysis (HD) patients have a high incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The study aim was to investigate whether impedance cardiography (electrical velocimetry, EV) is suitable as a hemodynamic trend monitoring tool in pediatric patients during HD.

METHODS

Measurements by EV were obtained before, during, and after HD in a prospective single-center pediatric observational study. In total, 54 dialysis cycles in four different pediatric patients with end-stage kidney disease on chronic HD were included. EV parameters analyzed were heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), stroke volume index (SI), cardiac output (CO), cardiac index (CI), thoracic fluid content (TFC), index of contractility (ICON), stroke volume variation (SVV), variation of ICON (VIC), R-R interval (TRR), pre-ejection period (PEP), left ventricular ejection time (LVET), and systolic time ration (STR). Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) was calculated.

RESULTS

EV did measure significant changes in cardiovascular parameters associated with HD. The following parameters increased after HD: HR (9%), SVV (19%), VIC (33%), PEP (8%), and STR (18%). A decrease after HD was measured in SV (18%), SI (18%), CO (10%), CI (10%), TFC (10%), ICON (7%), TRR (7%), LVET (8%), and LVET (8%). SVRI was not affected by HD. The changes were correlated to ultrafiltration. HD cycles without fluid withdrawal also altered cardiovascular parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric HD with and without fluid withdrawal changes hemodynamic EV monitoring parameters. Possibly EV may be useful to optimize HD management in pediatric patients.

Does goal-directed haemodynamic and fluid therapy improve peri-operative outcomes?: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Much uncertainty exists as to whether peri-operative goal-directed therapy is of benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To discover if peri-operative goal-directed therapy decreases mortality and morbidity in adult surgical patients.

DESIGN

An updated systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 31 December 2016.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials enrolling adult surgical patients allocated to receive goal-directed therapy or standard care were eligible for inclusion. Trauma patients and parturients were excluded. Goal-directed therapy was defined as fluid and/or vasopressor therapy titrated to haemodynamic goals [e.g. cardiac output (CO)]. Outcomes included mortality, morbidity and hospital length of stay. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology.

RESULTS

Ninety-five randomised trials (11 659 patients) were included. Only four studies were at low risk of bias. Modern goal-directed therapy reduced mortality compared with standard care [odds ratio (OR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87; number needed to treat = 59; N = 52; I = 0.0%]. In subgroup analysis, there was no mortality benefit for fluid-only goal-directed therapy, cardiac surgery patients or nonelective surgery. Contemporary goal-directed therapy also reduced pneumonia (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0. 92; number needed to treat = 38), acute kidney injury (OR 0. 73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92; number needed to treat = 29), wound infection (OR 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63; number needed to treat = 19) and hospital length of stay (days) (-0.90; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.48; I = 81. 2%). No important differences in outcomes were found for the pulmonary artery catheter studies, after accounting for advances in the standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Peri-operative modern goal-directed therapy reduces morbidity and mortality. Importantly, the quality of evidence was low to very low (e.g. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation scoring), and there was much clinical heterogeneity among the goal-directed therapy devices and protocols. Additional well designed and adequately powered trials on peri-operative goal-directed therapy are necessary.

Is goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic variables alone sufficient to improve clinical outcomes among patients undergoing surgery? A meta-analysis

Background

Whether goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness (GDFTdyn) alone improves clinical outcomes in comparison with standard fluid therapy among patients undergoing surgery remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant studies. Studies comparing the effects of GDFTdyn with that of standard fluid therapy on clinical outcomes among adult patients undergoing surgery were considered eligible. Two analyses were performed separately: GDFTdyn alone versus standard fluid therapy and GDFTdyn with other optimization goals versus standard fluid therapy. The primary outcomes were short-term mortality and overall morbidity, while the secondary outcomes were serum lactate concentration, organ-specific morbidity, and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in hospital.

Results

We included 37 studies with 2910 patients. Although GDFTdyn alone lowered serum lactate concentration (mean difference (MD) − 0.21 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 0.39, − 0.03), P = 0.02), no significant difference was found between groups in short-term mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI (0.32, 2.24), P = 0.74), overall morbidity (OR 1.03, 95% CI (0.31, 3.37), P = 0.97), organ-specific morbidity, or length of stay in the ICU and in hospital. Analysis of trials involving the combination of GDFTdyn and other optimization goals (mainly cardiac output (CO) or cardiac index (CIx)) showed a significant reduction in short-term mortality (OR 0.45, 95% CI (0.24, 0.85), P = 0.01), overall morbidity (OR 0.41, 95% CI (0.28, 0.58), P < 0.00001), serum lactate concentration (MD − 0.60 mmol/L, 95% CI (− 1.04, − 0.15), P = 0.009), cardiopulmonary complications (cardiac arrhythmia (OR 0.58, 95% CI (0.37, 0.92), P = 0.02), myocardial infarction (OR 0.35, 95% CI (0.16, 0.76), P = 0.008), heart failure/cardiovascular dysfunction (OR 0.31, 95% CI (0.14, 0.67), P = 0.003), acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 0.13, 95% CI (0.02, 0.74), P = 0.02), pneumonia (OR 0.4, 95% CI (0.24, 0.65), P = 0.0002)), length of stay in the ICU (MD − 0.77 days, 95% CI (− 1.07, − 0.46), P < 0.00001) and in hospital (MD − 1.18 days, 95% CI (− 1.90, − 0.46), P = 0.001).

Conclusions

It was not the optimization of fluid responsiveness by GDFTdyn alone but rather the optimization of tissue and organ perfusion by GDFTdyn and other optimization goals that benefited patients undergoing surgery. Patients managed with the combination of GDFTdyn and CO/CI goals might derive most benefit.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2251-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Association of conflicts of interest with the results and conclusions of goal-directed hemodynamic therapy research: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The association between conflicts of interest (COI) and study results or article conclusions in goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) research is unknown.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing GDHT with usual care were identified. COI were classified as industry sponsorship, author conflict, device loaner, none, or not reported. The association between COI and study results (complications and mortality) was assessed using both stratified meta-analysis and mixed effects meta-regression. The association between COI and an article's conclusion (graded as GDHT-favorable, neutral, or unfavorable) was investigated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 82 eligible articles, 43 (53%) had self-reported COI, and 50 (61%) favored GDHT. GDHT significantly reduced complications on the basis of the meta-analysis of studies with any type of COI, studies declaring no COI, industry-sponsored studies, and studies with author conflict but not on studies with a device loaner. However, no significant relationship between COI and the relative risk (GDHT vs. usual care) of developing complications was found on the basis of meta-regression (p = 0.25). No significant effect of GDHT was found on mortality. COI had a significant overall effect (p = 0.016) on the odds of having a GDHT-favorable vs. neutral conclusion based on 81 studies. Eighty-four percent of the industry-sponsored studies had a GDHT-favorable conclusion, while only 27% of the studies with a device loaner had the same conclusion grade.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence does not suggest a close relationship between COI and study results in GDHT research. However, a potential association may exist between COI and an article's conclusion in GDHT research.

Significance of perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic approach in preventing postoperative complications in patients after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

Goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDT) is used to prevent hypoperfusion resulting from surgery. The objective of this study was to analyze the efficacy and importance of perioperative GDT.

METHODS

PUBMED, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched until 17 June 2016 using the search terms: cardiac output, cardiac surgical procedures, hemodynamics, goal-directed therapy, and intraoperative. Randomized-controlled trials with pre-emptive hemodynamic intervention for cardiac surgical population versus standard hemodynamic therapy were included.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included with a total of 1148 patients. The overall analysis revealed no significant difference in the all-cause mortality (pooled peto OR =0.58, 95%CI =0.27-1.525, p = 0.164), duration of mechanical ventilation (pooled difference in mean= -1.48, 95%CI= -3.24 to 0.28, p = 0.099), or length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (pooled difference in mean= -9.10, 95%CI= -20.14 to 1.93, p = 0.106) between patients in the GDT and control groups. Patients in the GDP group were associated with shorter hospital stay than those in the control group (pooled difference in mean= -1.52, 95%CI= -2.31 to -0.73, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

GDT reduces the length of hospital stay compared with the standard of care. Further studies are necessary to continually assess the benefit of GDT following major surgery. Key Messages The results of this analysis revealed no significant difference between cardiac surgery patients receiving goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDT) or conventional fluid therapy in terms of the all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical intervention, and length of ICU-stay. The length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in patients treated with GDT compare to conventional fluid therapy. GDT may have limited benefit in reducing mortality; however, the association to shorter length of hospital stay may suggest that better hemodynamic balance can facilitate postoperative recovery.

Goal-directed therapy in the operating room: is there any benefit?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the current evidence behind goal-directed therapy (GDT) in multiple medical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although some studies advocate for the use of GDT, others do not and more studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of GDT in medicine. Previously accepted guidelines for treating patients in septic shock which include GDT in their algorithms are not supported by the findings in recent randomized, controlled trials. No generally accepted guidelines for GDT are available for perioperative use, but there is evidence supporting GDT in high-risk surgery such as major abdominal surgery and cardiac surgery. Clinicians should be aware of the potential benefits of GDT in these settings and use these evidence-based findings to help guide clinical decisions in these patient populations.

SUMMARY

The use of GDT may be beneficial depending on the clinical setting, but more evidence supporting its use is necessary before it can be considered standard of care.

Effect of patent ductus arteriosus and patent foramen ovale on left ventricular stroke volume measurement by electrical velocimetry in comparison to transthoracic echocardiography in neonates

This prospective single-center observational study compared impedance cardiography [electrical velocimetry (EV)] with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE, based on trans-aortic flow) and analyzed the influence of physiological shunts, such as patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) or patent foramen ovale (PFO), on measurement accuracy. Two hundred and ninety-one triplicate simultaneous paired left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV) measurements by EV (LVSV_EV) and TTE (LVSV_TTE) in 99 spontaneously breathing neonates (mean weight 3270 g; range 1227-4600 g) were included. For the whole cohort, the mean absolute LVSV_EV was 5.5 mL, mean LVSV_TTE was 4.9 mL, resulting in an absolute Bland-Altman bias of -0.7 mL (limits of agreement LOA -3.0 to 1.7 mL), relative bias -12.8 %; mean percentage error MPE 44.9 %; true precision TP_EV 33.4 % (n = 99 aggregated data points). In neonates without shunts (n = 32): mean LVSV_EV 5.0 mL, mean LVSV_TTE 4.6 mL, Bland-Altman bias -0.4 mL (LOA -2.8 to 2.0 mL), relative bias -8.2 %; MPE 50.7 %; TP_EV 40.9 %. In neonates with shunts (PDA and/or PFO; n = 67): mean LVSV_EV 5.8 mL, mean LVSV_TTE 5.0 mL, bias -0.8 mL (LOA -3.1 to 1.5 mL), relative bias -14.8 %, MPE 41.9 %, TP_EV 29.3 %. Accuracy was affected by PDA and/or PFO, with a significant increase in the relative difference in LVSV_EV versus LVSV_TTE: Subjects without shunts -2.9 % (n = 91), PFO alone -9.6 % (n = 125), PDA alone -14.0 % (n = 12), and PDA and PFO -18.5 % (n = 63). Physiological shunts (PDA and/or PFO) in neonates affect measurement accuracy and cause overestimation of LVSV_EV compared with LVSV_TTE.