The influence of goal-directed fluid therapy on the prognosis of elderly patients with hypertension and gastric cancer surgery

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

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.

Lack of impact of nil-per-os (NPO) time on goal-directed fluid delivery in first case versus afternoon case starts: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Goal Directed Fluid Therapy (GDFT) represents an objective fluid replacement algorithm. The effect of provider variability remains a confounder. Overhydration worsens perioperative morbidity and mortality; therefore, the impact of the calculated NPO deficit prior to the operating room may reach harm.

METHODS

A retrospective single-institution study analyzed patients at UC Irvine Medical Center main operating rooms from September 1, 2013 through September 1, 2015 receiving GDFT. The primary study question asked if GDFT suggested different fluid delivery after different NPO periods, while reducing inter-provider variability. We created two patient groups distinguished by 0715 surgical start time or start time after 1200. We analyzed fluid administration totals with either a 1:1 crystalloid to colloid ratio or a 3:1 ratio. We performed direct group-wise testing on total administered volume expressed as total ml, total ml/hr., and total ml/kg/hr. between the first case start (AM) and afternoon case (PM) groups. A linear regression model included all baseline covariates that differed between groups as well as plausible confounding factors for differing fluid needs. Finally, we combined all patients from both groups, and created NPO time to total administered fluid scatterplots to assess the effect of patient-reported NPO time on fluid administration.

RESULTS

Whether reported by total administered volume or net fluid volume, and whether we expressed the sum as ml, ml/hr., or ml/kg/hr., the AM group received more fluid on average than the PM group in all cases. In the general linear models, for all significant independent variables evaluated, AM vs PM case start did not reach significance in both cases at p = 0.64 and p = 0.19, respectively. In scatterplots of NPO time to fluid volumes, absolute adjusted and unadjusted R2 values are < 0.01 for each plot, indicating virtually non-existent correlations between uncorrected NPO time and fluid volumes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed NPO periods do not influence a patient's volume status just prior to presentation to the operating room for surgical intervention. We hope this data will influence the practice of providers routinely replacing calculated NPO period volume deficit; particularly with those presenting with later surgical case start times.

Evaluation of Surgical Procedures that Affect the Hemodynamics Using the FloTrac System in Esophageal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

Esophagectomy is more invasive compared to other gastrointestinal surgery types. Perioperative circulatory management is important to avoid postoperative heart complications. The FloTrac sensor along with the Vigileo monitor is a minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring device. Here, we examined different surgical procedures affecting hemodynamics using the FloTrac system in esophageal cancer patients following esophagectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-one patients undergoing postoperative monitoring with the FloTrac sensor/Vigileo monitor system following esophagectomy were included. Evaluation of cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume variation (SVV) measurements were performed by analyzing the number of aberrant values. We evaluated the correlation between the number of aberrant values of CI, SVV and surgical methods of esophagectomy and perioperative factors.

RESULTS

There was no significant correlation between the number of aberrant values of CI, SVV and operative approach or fields of lymphadenectomy. Regarding the reconstruction route following esophagectomy, there was a significant correlation between the number of aberrant values of CI, SVV and retrosternal route compared with other routes. There was a significant correlation between the number of aberrant values of SVV and preoperative heart complication.

CONCLUSION

Hemodynamic stability management using FloTrac/Vigileo system following esophagectomy is useful for safe performance of postoperative management of esophageal cancer patients.

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.

Geriatric Anesthesia-related Morbidity and Mortality in China: Current Status and Trend

Objective:

The population of elderly patients and the amount of geriatric anesthesia have been growing rapidly in China. Thus, understanding the morbidity and mortality associated with geriatric anesthesia in China is critical to the improvement of anesthesia quality and outcome. The aim of the review was to discuss the geriatric anesthesia-related morbidity and mortality in China, as well as to point out the future trend.

Data Sources:

Articles in this review were all searched from Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, based on the reports originated in China from January 2011 to December 2016.

Study Selection:

A total of 57 studies were selected for further study, including 12 retrospective studies, 35 prospective studies, 3 meta-analyses, 4 reviews, 1 viewpoint, and 2 case reports. Of the total studies, 42 studies were in Chinese while 15 were in English.

Results:

The mortality and morbidity associated with geriatric anesthesia in China are not yet completely reported. Some factors have been recognized, while some are yet to be identified and confirmed. Several studies addressed postoperative cognitive dysfunction and postoperative delirium, whereas only a few studies can be found on renal complications. Thus, a nationwide registry is essential for geriatric anesthesia-associated adverse outcomes. The mortality associated with geriatric anesthesia in China should be reported promptly. In the future, the perspective of geriatric anesthesia needs to be expanded into perioperative geriatric medicine to improve the perioperative management strategy based on the postoperative outcome-directed concept transformation.

Conclusions:

Anesthesiologists should evaluate the physiological and medical status and focus on the prevention of potential complications in the perioperative setting with the goal to enhance elderly patients’ long-term well-being and survival quality.

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.

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.

Fast Track Surgery in the Elderly: Avoid or Proceed with Caution?

The feasibility of applying fast track surgery in its current form in the elderly still remains to be proven. It is important to identify the reasons for failure and carve out programs suited to the impaired physiology in this patient population. There needs to be a consensus among practitioner regarding the definitions of failure and flexibility of fast track programs at institutional as well as regional levels.