A randomised prospective trial of intra-operative oesophageal Doppler-guided fluid administration in major gynaecological surgery

Predicting fluid responsiveness using esophagus Doppler monitoring and pulse oximetry derived pleth variability index; retrospective analysis of a hemodynamic study

BACKGROUND

Fluid therapy during major surgery can be managed by providing repeated bolus infusions until stroke volume no longer increases by ≥ 10%. However, the final bolus in an optimization round increases stroke volume by < 10% and is not necessary. We studied how different cut-off values for the hemodynamic indications given by esophagus Doppler monitoring, as well as augmentation by pulse oximetry, are associated with a higher or smaller chance that stroke volume increases by ≥ 10% (fluid responsiveness) before fluid is infused.

METHODS

An esophagus Doppler and a pulse oximeter that displayed the pleth variability index were used to monitor the effects of a bolus infusion in 108 patients undergoing goal-directed fluid therapy during major open abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

The analyzed data set comprised 266 bolus infusions. The overall incidence of fluid responsiveness was 44%, but this varied greatly depending on pre-infusion hemodynamics. The likelihood of being fluid-responsive was 30%-38% in the presence of stroke volume > 80 mL, corrected flow time > 360 ms, or pleth variability index < 10%. The likelihood was 21% if stroke volume had decreased by <8% since the previous optimization, which decreased to 0% if combined with stroke volume > 100 mL. By contrast, the likelihood of fluid responsiveness increased to 50%-55% when stroke volume ≤ 50 mL, corrected flow time ≤ 360 ms, or pleth variability index ≥ 10. A decrease in stroke volume by > 8% since the previous optimization was followed by a 58% likelihood of fluid responsiveness that, in combination with any of the other hemodynamic variables, increased to 66%-76%.

CONCLUSIONS

Single or combined hemodynamic variables provided by esophagus Doppler monitoring and pulse oximetry derived pleth variability index could help clinicians avoid unnecessary fluid bolus infusions.

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.

Perioperative goal-directed fluid management using noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in gynecologic oncology

Background

Intraoperative fluid management is important for the prevention of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Our study aimed to investigate the perioperative feasibility and benefits of Goal-Directed Fluid Management (GDFM) using noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in gynecologic oncology patients with acute blood loss and severe fluid loss. We assessed the effects of GDFM on hemodynamics, organ perfusion, complications, and mortality outcomes.

Methods

This randomized prospective study included 104 patients over the age of 18 years, including 56 patients with endometrial cancer and 48 patients with ovarian cancer who had open surgery. The anesthetic approach was standardized for all patients. We compared the perioperative results of the subjects who were randomized into GDFM (n = 51) and Liberal Fluid Management (LFM) (n = 53) groups using a computer program.

Results

The median perioperative crystalloid replacement (2000 vs. 2700; p < 0.001) and total volume of fluid (2260 vs. 3200; p < 0.001) were lower in the GDFM group compared to the LFM group. The hemodynamic findings and the HCO₃ and lactate levels of the GDFM group did not significantly change perioperatively. The heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and HCO₃ levels of the LFM group decreased and serum lactate levels increased perioperatively. The hospitalization rate in ICU (7.8% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.010), rate of patients with comorbidity conditions indicated in ICU (2% vs. 17%; p = 0.024), and rate of complications (17.6% vs. 35.8%; p = 0.047) were lower in the GDFM group compared to the LFM group.

Conclusion

The amount of intraoperatively administered crystalloid solution and complication rates were significantly lower in gynecologic oncologic surgery patients who received GDFM. Besides, hemodynamic findings, and lactate levels of the GDFM group did not change significantly during the perioperative period.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes.

METHODS

Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).

RESULTS

The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.

Association between perioperative fluid administration and postoperative outcomes: a 20-year systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized goal-directed trials in major visceral/noncardiac surgery

Background

Appropriate perioperative fluid management is of pivotal importance to reduce postoperative complications, which impact on early and long-term patient outcome. The so-called perioperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) approach aims at customizing perioperative fluid management on the individual patients’ hemodynamic response. Whether or not the overall amount of perioperative volume infused in the context of GDT could influence postoperative surgical outcomes is unclear.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of GDT approach between study population and control group in reducing postoperative complications and perioperative mortality, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register. The enrolled studies were grouped considering the amount infused intraoperatively and during the first 24 h after the admission in the critical care unit (perioperative fluid).

Results

The metanalysis included 21 RCTs enrolling 2729 patients with a median amount of perioperative fluid infusion of 4500 ml. In the studies reporting an overall amount below or above this threshold, the differences in postoperative complications were not statically significant between controls and GDT subgroup [43.4% vs. 34.2%, p value = 0.23 and 54.8% vs. 39.8%; p value = 0.09, respectively].

Overall, GDT reduced the overall rate of postoperative complications, as compared to controls [pooled risk difference (95% CI) = − 0.10 (− 0.14, − 0.07); Chi₂ = 30.97; p value < 0.0001], but not to a reduction of perioperative mortality [pooled risk difference (95%CI) = − 0.016 (− 0.0334; 0.0014); p value = 0.07]. Considering the rate of organ-related postoperative events, GDT did not reduce neither renal (p value = 0.52) nor cardiovascular (p value = 0.86) or pulmonary (p value = 0.14) or neurological (p value = 0.44) or infective (p value = 0.12) complications.

Conclusions

Irrespectively to the amount of perioperative fluid administered, GDT strategy reduces postoperative complications, but not perioperative mortality.

Trial Registration

CRD42020168866; Registration: February 2020

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=168866

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT) in surgical patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of GDHT on post-operative pulmonary complications

Background

Perioperative goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT), defined as the administration of fluids with or without inotropes or vasoactive agents against explicit measured goals to augment blood flow, has been evaluated in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) over the past four decades. Reported post-operative pulmonary complications commonly include chest infection or pneumonia, atelectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury, aspiration pneumonitis, pulmonary embolism, and pulmonary oedema. Despite the substantial clinical literature in this area, it remains unclear whether their incidence is reduced by GDHT. This systematic review aims to determine the effect of GDHT on the respiratory outcomes listed above, in surgical patients.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and clinical trial registries up until January 2020. We included all RCTs reporting pulmonary outcomes. The primary outcome was post-operative pulmonary complications and secondary outcomes were specific pulmonary complications and intra-operative fluid input. Data synthesis was performed on Review Manager and heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics.

Results

We identified 66 studies with 9548 participants reporting pulmonary complications. GDHT resulted in a significant reduction in total pulmonary complications (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). The incidence of pulmonary infections, reported in 45 studies with 6969 participants, was significantly lower in the GDHT group (OR 0.72, CI 0.60 to 0.86). Pulmonary oedema was recorded in 23 studies with 3205 participants and was less common in the GDHT group (OR 0.47, CI 0.30 to 0.73). There were no differences in the incidences of pulmonary embolism or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sub-group analyses demonstrated: (i) benefit from GDHT in general/abdominal/mixed and cardiothoracic surgery but not in orthopaedic or vascular surgery; and (ii) benefit from fluids with inotropes and/or vasopressors in combination but not from fluids alone. Overall, the GDHT group received more colloid (+280 ml) and less crystalloid (−375 ml) solutions than the control group. Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, we downgraded this evidence to moderate.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of GDHT using fluids with inotropes and/or vasopressors, but not fluids alone, reduces the development of post-operative pulmonary infections and pulmonary oedema in general, abdominal and cardiothoracic surgical patients. This evidence was graded as moderate.

PROSPERO registry reference: CRD42020170361

Carotid Artery Corrected Flow Time and Respiratory Variations of Peak Blood Flow Velocity for Prediction of Hypotension After Induction of General Anesthesia in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

Hypotension is common after induction of general anesthesia, and intraoperative hypotension is associated with postoperative end-organ injury such as acute kidney injury and myocardial ischemia. This study was designed to determine the utility of the carotid corrected flow time (cFT) and carotid artery peak blood flow velocity variation (ðV_peak ) for prediction of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia.

METHODS

Adult patients (n = 112) undergoing any elective surgery under general anesthesia who fasted for at least 6 to 8 hours were recruited in this prospective observational study. The common carotid artery cFT and ðV_peak were measured with ultrasound 10 minutes before induction of general anesthesia. After that, general anesthesia with propofol was used, and hemodynamic data were collected until 3 minutes after induction of anesthesia.

RESULTS

The carotid cFT was significantly correlated with percentages of the fall in the systolic blood pressure at 2 minutes (P < .0001) and 3 minutes (P < .0001) and percentages of the fall in the mean arterial pressure at 1 minute (P = .0006), 2 minutes (P < .0001), and 3 minutes (P < .0001). The cFT was a predictor of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91. The best cutoff value obtained from this study was 330.2 milliseconds or less, which predicted postinduction hypotension with sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% and 96.8%, respectively. The ðV_peak was an inferior predictor of postinduction hypotension, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.68. The optimum cutoff value was 18.8%, with sensitivity and specificity of 61.9% and 67.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The cFT measured in the common carotid artery is a reasonable predictor of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia in American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II patients. Further studies are required to identify its role in high-risk patients such as older groups and patients with cardiovascular diseases and also to identify interobserver and intraobserver variability of cFT and ðV_peak measurements.

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.

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.

Best practice & research clinical anaesthesiology: Advances in haemodynamic monitoring for the perioperative patient: Perioperative cardiac output monitoring

Less invasive or even completely non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring technologies have evolved during the last decades. Even established, invasive devices such as the pulmonary artery catheter and transpulmonary thermodilution have still an evidence-based place in the perioperative setting, albeit only in special patient populations. Accumulating evidence suggests to use continuous haemodynamic monitoring, especially flow-based variables such as stroke volume or cardiac output to prevent occult hypoperfusion and, consequently, decrease morbidity and mortality perioperatively. However, there is still a substantial gap between evidence provided by randomised trials and the implementation of haemodynamic monitoring in daily clinical routine. Given the fact that perioperative morbidity and mortality are higher than anticipated and anaesthesiologists are in charge to deal with this problem, the recent advances in minimally invasive and non-invasive monitoring technologies may facilitate more widespread use in the operating theatre, as in addition to costs, the degree of invasiveness of any monitoring tool determines the frequency of its application, at least perioperatively. This review covers the currently available invasive, non-invasive and minimally invasive techniques and devices and addresses their indications and limitations.

Hemodynamic goal-directed therapy and postoperative kidney injury: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background

Perioperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) reduces the risk of renal injury. However, several questions remain unanswered, such as target, kind of patients and surgery, and role of fluids and inotropes. We therefore update a previous analysis, including all studies published in the meanwhile, to clarify the clinical impact of this strategy on acute kidney injury.

Main body

Randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients undergoing major surgery were considered. GDT was defined as perioperative monitoring and manipulation of hemodynamic parameters to reach normal or supranormal values by fluids alone or with inotropes. Trials comparing the effects of GDT and standard hemodynamic therapy were considered. Primary outcome was acute kidney injury, whichever definition was used. Meta-analytic techniques (analysis software RevMan, version 5.3) were used to combine studies, using random-effect odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Trial sequential analyses were performed including all trials and considering only low risk of bias trials. Sixty-five trials with an overall sample of 9308 patients were included. OR for the development of renal injury was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.62–0.87; p = 0.0003), with no statistical heterogeneity. Trial sequential analyses and sensitivity analysis including studies with low risk of bias confirmed the main results. A significant decrease in renal injury rate was observed in studies that adopted cardiac output and oxygen delivery as hemodynamic target and that used both fluids and inotropes. The postoperative kidney injury rate was significantly lower in trials enrolling “high-risk” patients and major abdominal and orthopedic surgery.

Short conclusion

The present meta-analysis suggests that targeting GDT to perioperative systemic oxygen delivery, by means of fluids and inotropes, can be the best way to improve renal perfusion and oxygenation in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal and orthopedic surgery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2516-4) 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.

Flow-directed vs. goal-directed strategy for management of hemodynamics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For the past 15 years, there has been a strong push to use goal-directed protocols for resuscitating critically ill patients and to manage perioperative patients. However, recent large clinical trials have failed to find evidence of improved outcome with this approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

A striking feature in the recent three large prospective randomized trials of septic patients and the one in high-risk perioperative patients is that outcomes in the control groups have markedly improved. This implies improvement in care and clinical acumen. Perhaps the clinical approach should be more toward further helping clinicians with their clinical choices. A good example is cardiac output. The objective of most hemodynamic interventions is to increase cardiac output. It would thus make sense to assess what happened to cardiac output after the intervention to determine if the intervention actually increased cardiac output. If it did not, another therapy should be chosen. I call this a flow-directed responsive protocol.

SUMMARY

A clinical approach that uses monitored values such as cardiac output as a feedback tool to evaluate the response to therapeutic interventions in individual patients may be better than protocols that set fixed targets for all study participants.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review of Interventions Trialed

Objectives

We sought to summarize the evidence for interventions aiming at enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in ovarian cancer through a systematic review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library for studies testing ERAS interventions in patients undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer. Study selection and data extraction were done independently by 2 reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion with a senior, third reviewer.

Results

We identified 25 studies including 1648 participants with ovarian cancer. Nine observational studies addressed ERAS protocols. Four of them were prospective, and 3 included historical controls. The other 16 studies reported single interventions, for example, early feeding, omission of pelvic drains, early orogastric tube removal, Doppler-guided fluid management, and patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Early feeding protocols were tested in 7 of the 12 randomized trials. Early feeding appeared to be safe and was associated with significantly faster recovery of bowel function.

Conclusions

Few studies have specifically studied ERAS interventions in ovarian cancer. All studies on protocols including multiple interventions were susceptible to bias. Early feeding is the intervention that is best supported by randomized trials. Application of evidence for ERAS derived from nonovarian cancer is challenged by the differences not only in the scope of surgery but also in ovarian cancer patients’ comorbidities. Postoperative morbidity is particularly high in these patients because of their poor nutritional status, perioperative fluids shifts, and long operating times. These patients may also show excessive response to surgical stress. Innovative, randomized trials are needed to reliably determine the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of specific ERAS interventions in ovarian cancer.

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.

Effect of goal-directed therapy on outcome after esophageal surgery: A quality improvement study

Background

Goal-directed therapy (GDT) can reduce postoperative complications in high-risk surgery patients. It is uncertain whether GDT has the same benefits in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. Goal of this Quality Improvement study was to evaluate the effects of a stroke volume guided GDT on post-operative outcome.

Methods and findings

We compared the postoperative outcome of patients undergoing esophagectomy before (99 patients) and after (100 patients) implementation of GDT. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with a complication (56% vs. 54%, p = 0.82), hospital stay and mortality. The incidence of prolonged ICU stay (>48 hours) was reduced (28% vs. 12, p = .005) in patients treated with GDT. Secondary analysis of complication rate showed a decrease in pneumonia (29 vs. 15%, p = .02), mediastinal abscesses (12 vs. 3%, p = .02), and gastric tube necrosis (5% vs. 0%, p = .03) in patients treated with GDT. Patients in the GDT group received significantly less fluids but received more colloids.

Conclusions

The implementation of GDT during esophagectomy was not associated with reductions in overall morbidity, mortality and hospital length of stay. However, we observed a decrease in pneumonia, mediastinal abscesses, gastric tube necrosis, and ICU length of stay.

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.

Oesophageal Doppler guided optimization of cardiac output does not increase visceral microvascular blood flow in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal Doppler monitoring (ODM) is used clinically to optimize cardiac output (CO) and guide fluid therapy. Despite limited experimental evidence, it is assumed that increasing CO increases visceral microvascular blood flow (MBF). We used contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to assess whether ODM-guided optimization of CO altered MBF.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy male volunteers (62 ± 3·4 years) were studied. Baseline measurements of CO were recorded via ODM. Hepatic and renal MBF was assessed via CEUS. Saline 0·9% was administered to optimize CO according to a standard protocol and repeat CEUS performed. Time-intensity curves were constructed, allowing organ perfusion calculation via time to 5% perfusion (TT5). MBF was assessed via organ perfusion rise time (RT) (5-95%).

RESULTS

CO increased (4535 ± 241 ml/min versus 5442 ± 329 ml/min, P<0·0001) following fluid administration, whilst time to renal (22·48 ± 1·19 s versus 20·79 ± 1·31 s; P = 0·03), but not hepatic (28·13 ± 4·48 s versus 26·83 ± 1·53 s; P = 0·15) perfusion decreased. Time to renal perfusion was related to CO (renal: r = -0·43, P = 0·01). Hepatic nor renal RT altered following fluid administration (renal: 9·03 ± 0·86 versus 8·93 ± 0·85 s P = 0·86; hepatic: 27·86 ± 1·60 s versus 30·71 ± 2·19 s, P = 0·13). No relationship was observed between changes in CO and MBF in either organ (renal: r = -0·17, P = 0·54; hepatic: r = -0·07, P = 0·80).

CONCLUSIONS

ODM-optimized CO reduces time to renal perfusion but does not alter renal or hepatic MBF. A lack of relationship between microvascular visceral perfusion and CO following ODM-guided optimization may explain the absence of improved clinical outcome with ODM monitoring.

Goal-directed fluid therapy for reducing risk of surgical site infections following abdominal surgery - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Surgical site infections (SSIs) become a key indicator of quality of care. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) on the risk of SSIs after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), from inception to May 2016 that compared the incidence of SSIs in abdominal surgical patients with or without GDFT treatment. . Data were pooled and risk ratio (RR) as well as weighted mean differences (WMD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated using either fixed or random effects models, depending on heterogeneity (I²).

RESULTS

A total of 29 eligible RCTs with 5317 patients were included in this analysis. GDFT significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs after abdominal surgery. The pooled RR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.86) with low heterogeneity (I² = 4%). Length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the GDFT group (WMD: -1.16 days, 95% CI: -1.92 to -0.40, p = 0.003; I² = 81%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that perioperative GDFT is associated with a reduction in the incidence of SSIs after abdominal surgery.

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.

Goal directed hemodynamic therapy based in esophageal Doppler flow parameters: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have compared perioperative esophageal doppler monitoring (EDM) guided intravascular volume replacement strategies with conventional clinical volume replacement in surgical patients. The use of the EDM within hemodynamic algorithms is called 'goal directed hemodynamic therapy' (GDHT).

METHODS

Meta-analysis of the effects of EDM guided GDHT in adult non-cardiac surgery on postoperative complications and mortality using PRISMA methodology. A systematic search was performed in Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (last update, March 2015).

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which perioperative GDHT was compared to other fluid management.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Overall complications.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Mortality; number of patients with complications; cardiac, renal and infectious complications; incidence of ileus. Studies were subjected to quantifiable analysis, pre-defined subgroup analysis (stratified by surgery, type of comparator and risk); pre-defined sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Fifty six RCTs were initially identified, 15 fulfilling the inclusion criteria, including 1,368 patients. A significant reduction was observed in overall complications associated with GDHT compared to other fluid therapy (RR=0.75; 95%CI: 0.63-0.89; P=0.0009) in colorectal, urological and high-risk surgery compared to conventional fluid therapy. No differences were found in secondary outcomes, neither in other subgroups. The impact on preventing the development of complications in patients using EDM is high, causing a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 50% for a number needed to treat (NNT)=6.

CONCLUSIONS

GDHT guided by EDM decreases postoperative complications, especially in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and high-risk surgery. However, no differences versus restrictive fluid therapy and in intermediate-risk patients were found.

Intraoperative Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Elective Major Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives:

To compare the effects of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) with conventional fluid therapy, and determine whether there was a difference in outcome between studies that did and did not use Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols.

Methods:

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adult patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery comparing intraoperative GDFT versus conventional fluid therapy. The outcome measures were postoperative morbidity, length of stay, gastrointestinal function and 30-day mortality.

Results:

A total of 23 studies were included with 2099 patients: 1040 who underwent GDFT and 1059 who received conventional fluid therapy. GDFT was associated with a significant reduction in morbidity (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.89, P = 0.0007), hospital length of stay (LOS; mean difference −1.55 days, 95% CI −2.73 to −0.36, P = 0.01), intensive care LOS (mean difference −0.63 days, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.09, P = 0.02), and time to passage of feces (mean difference −0.90 days, 95% CI −1.48 to −0.32 days, P = 0.002). However, no difference was seen in mortality, return of flatus, or risk of paralytic ileus. If patients were managed in an ERAS pathway, the only significant reductions were in intensive care LOS (mean difference −0.63 days, 95% CI −0.94 to −0.32, P < 0.0001) and time to passage of feces (mean difference −1.09 days, 95% CI −2.03 to −0.15, P = 0.02). If managed in a traditional care setting, a significant reduction was seen in both overall morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to −0.84, P = 0.0002) and total hospital LOS (mean difference −2.14, 95% CI −4.15 to −0.13, P = 0.04).

Conclusions:

GDFT may not be of benefit to all elective patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, particularly those managed in an ERAS setting.

Monitoring needs and goal-directed fluid therapy within an enhanced recovery program

Patients having major abdominal surgery need perioperative fluid supplementation; however, enhanced recovery principles mitigate against many of the factors that traditionally led to relative hypovolemia in the perioperative period. An estimate of fluid requirements for abdominal surgery can be made but individualization of fluid prescription requires consideration of clinical signs and hemodynamic variables. The literature supports goal-directed fluid therapy. Application of this evidence to justify stroke volume optimization in the setting of major surgery within an enhanced recovery program is controversial. This article places the evidence in context, reviews controversies, and suggests implications for current practice and future research.

Evidence-based anesthesia for major gynecologic surgery

Studies on enhanced recovery after gynecological surgery are limited but seem to report outcome benefits similar to those reported after colorectal surgery. Regional anesthesia is recommended in enhanced recovery protocols. Effective regional anesthetic techniques in gynecologic surgery include spinal anesthesia, epidural analgesia, transversus abdominis plane blocks, local anesthetic wound infusions and intraperitoneal instillation catheters. Non-opioid analgesics including pregabalin, gabapentin, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, and paracetamol reduce opioid consumption after surgery. This population is at high risk for PONV, thus, a multimodal anti-emetic strategy must be employed, including strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV in conjunction with combination antiemetic therapy.

Oesophageal Doppler cardiac output monitoring: a longstanding tool with evolving indications and applications

Much work has been done over the years to assess cardiac output and better grasp haemodynamic profiles of patients in critical care and during major surgery. Pulmonary artery catheterization has long been considered as the standard of care, especially in critical care environments, however this dogma has been challenged over the last 10-15 years. This has led to a greater focus on alternate, lesser invasive technologies. This review focuses on the scientific and clinical outcomes basis of oesophageal Doppler monitoring. The science underpinning Doppler shift assessment of velocity stretches back over 100 years, whereas the clinical applicability, and specifically clinical outcomes improvement can be attributed to the last 20 years. Oesophageal Doppler monitoring (ODM), and its associated protocol-guided fluid administration, has been shown to reduce complications, length of stay, and overall healthcare cost when incorporated into perioperative fluid management algorithms. However, more recent advances in enhanced recovery after surgery programs have led to similar improvements, leading the clinician to consider the role of Oesophageal Doppler Monitor to be more focused in high-risk surgery and/or the high-risk patient.

A prospective observational study of stroke volume responsiveness to a passive leg raise manoeuvre in healthy non-starved volunteers as assessed by transthoracic echocardiography

Current guidelines for intra-operative fluid management recommend the use of increments in stroke volume following intravenous fluid bolus administration as a guide to subsequent fluid therapy. To study the physiological premise of this paradigm, we tested the hypothesis that healthy, non-starved volunteers would develop an increment in their stroke volume following a passive leg raise manoeuvre. Subjects were positioned supine and stroke volume was measured by transthoracic echocardiography at baseline, 30 s, 1 min, 3 min and 5 min after passive leg raise manoeuvre to 45°. Stroke volume was measured at end-expiration during quiet breathing, as the mean of three sequential measurements. Seventeen healthy volunteers were recruited; one volunteer in whom it was not possible to obtain Doppler measurements and a further five for reasons of poor Doppler image quality were not included in the study. Mean (SD) percentage difference from baseline to the largest change in stroke volume was 5.7 (9.6)% (p = 0.16). Of the 11 volunteers evaluated, five (45%) had stroke volume increases of greater than 10%. Mean (SD) maximum percentage change in cardiac index was 14.8 (9.7)% (p = 0.004). A wide variation in baseline stroke volume and response to the passive leg raise manoeuvre was seen, suggesting greater heterogeneity in the normal population than current clinical guidelines recognise.