Intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy in noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy on postoperative complications after thoracic surgery with one-lung ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An understanding of the impact of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) on the outcomes of patients undergoing one-lung ventilation (OLV) for thoracic surgery remains incomplete and controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of GDFT compared to other fluid therapy strategies on the incidence of postoperative complications in patients with OLV.

METHODS

The Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDLINE via PubMed databases were searched from their inception to November 30, 2022. Forest plots were constructed to present the results of the meta-analysis. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Study of Interventions (ROBINS-I). The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, total fluid infusion, inflammatory factors (TNF-α, IL-6), and postoperative bowel function recovery time.

RESULTS

A total of 1318 patients from 11 studies were included in this review. The GDFT group had a lower incidence of postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.29-0.75; P = 0.002; I 2, 67%], postoperative pulmonary complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.83; P = 0.009), and postoperative anastomotic leakage (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.97; P = 0.04). The GDFT strategy reduces total fluid infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

GDFT is associated with lower postoperative complications and better survival outcomes after thoracic surgery for OLV.

Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy and Postoperative Outcomes in an Enhanced Recovery Program for Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has increasingly been utilized in major surgery as a key component to ensure fluid optimization and adequate tissue perfusion, showing improvements in the rate of morbidity and mortality under conventional care. It is unclear if patients derive similar benefit as part of an enhanced recovery program (ERP). Our group sought to assess the association between GDFT and postoperative outcomes within an ERP for colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched analysis, based upon demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and ERP components, was utilized to assess the association between GDFT and outcomes in a multicenter prospective ERP for colorectal surgery cohort study. Outcomes included pulmonary edema, acute kidney injury (AKI), ileus, surgical site infection (SSI), and anastomotic dehiscence. The calipmatch module was used to match patients who received GDFT to non-GDFT in a 1-to-1 propensity score fashion.

RESULTS

A total of 151 matched pairs were included in the analysis (n = 302, 23%). Both groups had comparable baseline demographics, as well as similar rates of compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) components. Goal-directed fluid therapy patients received significantly more colloid (237 ± 320 mL vs. 140 ± 245 mL, P < .01) than non-GDFT counterparts. Goal-directed fluid therapy was not associated with improved rates of postoperative AKI (odds ratios (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence intervals (CI) .39-2.59, P = 1.00), ileus (OR 1.40, 95% CI .82-2.41, P = .22), SSI (OR 1.06, 95% CI .54-2.08, P = .86), or length of hospital stay (LOS) (10.8 ± 8.9 vs. 11.1±13.2 days, P = .84).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no associated between GDFT and major postoperative outcomes within an ERAS program for colorectal surgery. Additional large-scale or pragmatic randomized trials are necessary to determine whether GDFT has a role in ERP for colorectal surgery.

Perioperative restrictive versus goal-directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Perioperative fluid management is a crucial element of perioperative care and has been studied extensively recently; however, 'the right amount' remains uncertain. One concept in perioperative fluid handling is goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), wherein fluid administration targets various continuously measured haemodynamic variables with the aim of optimizing oxygen delivery. Another recently raised concept is that perioperative restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) may be beneficial and at least as effective as GDFT, with lower cost and less resource utilization.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether RFT may be more beneficial than GDFT for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases on 11 October 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in the Cochrane Libary; MEDLINE; and Embase. Additionally, we performed a targeted search in Google Scholar and searched trial registries (World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov) for ongoing and unpublished trials. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative RFT versus GDFT for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion and consulted a third review author if necessary. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and for continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with standard deviations (SDs). We used Review Manager 5 software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model. We used Poisson regression models to compare the average number of complications per person.

MAIN RESULTS

From 6396 citations, we included six studies with a total of 562 participants. Five studies were performed in participants undergoing abdominal surgery (including one study in participants undergoing cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)), and one study was performed in participants undergoing orthopaedic surgery. In all studies, surgeries were elective. In five studies, crystalloids were used for basal infusion and colloids for boluses, and in one study, colloid was used for both basal infusion and boluses. Five studies reported the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status of participants. Most participants were ASA II (60.4%), 22.7% were ASA I, and only 16.9% were ASA III. No study participants were ASA IV. For the GDFT group, oesophageal doppler monitoring was used in three studies, uncalibrated invasive arterial pressure analysis systems in two studies, and a non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring system in one study. In all studies, GDFT optimization was conducted only intraoperatively. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. The other five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in one to three domains. RFT may have no effect on the rate of major complications compared to GDFT, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.34; 484 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). RFT may increase the risk of all-cause mortality compared to GDFT, but the evidence on this is also very uncertain (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). In a post-hoc analysis using a Peto odds ratio (OR) or a Poisson regression model, the odds of all-cause mortality were 4.81 times greater with the use of RFT compared to GDFT, but the evidence again is very uncertain (Peto OR 4.81, 95% CI 1.38 to 16.84; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis shows that exclusion of a study in which the final volume of fluid received intraoperatively was higher in the RFT group than in the GDFT group revealed no differences in mortality. Based on analysis of secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay (464 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), surgery-related complications (364 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), non-surgery-related complications (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), renal failure (410 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and quality of surgical recovery (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), GDFT may have no effect on the risk of these outcomes compared to RFT, but the evidence is very uncertain. Included studies provided no data on administration of vasopressors or inotropes to correct haemodynamic instability nor on cost of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether RFT is inferior to GDFT in selected populations of adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The evidence is based mainly on data from studies on abdominal surgery in a low-risk population. The evidence does not address higher-risk populations or other surgery types. Larger, higher-quality RCTs including a wider spectrum of surgery types and a wider spectrum of patient groups, including high-risk populations, are needed to determine effects of the intervention.

Clinical guidelines for perioperative hemodynamic management of non cardiac surgical adult patients

Perioperative hemodynamic management, through monitoring and intervention on physiological parameters to improve cardiac output and oxygen delivery (goal-directed therapy, GDT), may improve outcome. However, an Italian survey has revealed that hemodynamic protocols are applied by only 29.1% of anesthesiologists. Aim of this paper is to provide clinical guidelines for a rationale use of perioperative hemodynamic management in non cardiac surgical adult patients, oriented for Italy and updated with most recent studies. Guidelines were elaborated according to NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) and GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations of Assessment Development and Evaluations). Key questions were formulated according to PICO system (Population, Intervention, Comparators, Outcome). Guidelines and systematic reviews were identified on main research databases and strategy was updated to June 2018. There is not enough good quality evidence to support the adoption of a GDT protocol in order to reduce mortality, although it may be useful in high risk patients. Perioperative GDT protocol to guide fluid therapy is recommended to reduce morbidity. Continuous monitoring of arterial pressure may help to identify short periods of hemodynamic instability and hypotension. Fluid strategy should aim to a near zero balance in normovolemic patients at the beginning of surgery, and a slight positive fluid balance may be allowed to protect renal function. Drugs such as inotropes, vasocostrictors, and vasodilatator should be used only when fluids alone are not sufficient to optimize hemodynamics. Perioperative GDT protocols are associated with a reduction in costs, although no economic study has been performed in Italy.