Dataset Information

Closed-loop assisted versus manual goal-directed fluid therapy during high-risk abdominal surgery: a case-control study with propensity matching.

ABSTRACT: Goal-directed fluid therapy strategies have been shown to benefit moderate- to high-risk surgery patients. Despite this, these strategies are often not implemented. The aim of this study was to assess a closed-loop fluid administration system in a surgical cohort and compare the results with those for matched patients who received manual management. Our hypothesis was that the patients receiving closed-loop assistance would spend more time in a preload-independent state, defined as percentage of case time with stroke volume variation less than or equal to 12%.Patients eligible for the study were all those over 18 years of age scheduled for hepatobiliary, pancreatic or splenic surgery and expected to receive intravascular arterial blood pressure monitoring as part of their anesthetic care. The closed-loop resuscitation target was selected by the primary anesthesia team, and the system was responsible for implementation of goal-directed fluid therapy during surgery. Following completion of enrollment, each study patient was matched to a non-closed-loop assisted case performed during the same time period using a propensity match to reduce bias.A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 5 were ultimately excluded and 25 matched pairs were selected from among the remaining 35 patients within the predefined caliper distance. There was no significant difference in fluid administration between groups. The closed-loop group spent a significantly higher portion of case time in a preload-independent state (95?±?6% of case time versus 87?±?14%, P =0.008). There was no difference in case mean or final stroke volume index (45?±?10 versus 43?±?9 and 45?±?11 versus 42?±?11, respectively) or mean arterial pressure (79?±?8 versus 83?±?9). Case end heart rate was significantly lower in the closed-loop assisted group (77?±?10 versus 88?±?13, P =0.003).In this case-control study with propensity matching, clinician use of closed-loop assistance resulted in a greater portion of case time spent in a preload-independent state throughout surgery compared with manual delivery of goal-directed fluid therapy.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02020863. Registered 19 December 2013.

SUBMITTER: Rinehart J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4372998 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Closed-loop assisted versus manual goal-directed fluid therapy during high-risk abdominal surgery: a case-control study with propensity matching.

Rinehart Joseph J Lilot Marc M Lee Christine C Joosten Alexandre A Huynh Trish T Canales Cecilia C Imagawa David D Demirjian Aram A Cannesson Maxime M

Critical care (London, England) 20150319

<h4>Introduction</h4>Goal-directed fluid therapy strategies have been shown to benefit moderate- to high-risk surgery patients. Despite this, these strategies are often not implemented. The aim of this study was to assess a closed-loop fluid administration system in a surgical cohort and compare the results with those for matched patients who received manual management. Our hypothesis was that the patients receiving closed-loop assistance would spend more time in a preload-independent state, def ...[more]

PMID: 25888403

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:We sought to evaluate the efficacy, efficiency, and physiologic consequences of automated, endpoint-directed resuscitation systems and compare them to formula-based bolus resuscitation. DESIGN:Experimental human hemorrhage and resuscitation. SETTING:Clinical research laboratory. SUBJECTS:Healthy volunteers. INTERVENTIONS:Subjects (n = 7) were subjected to hemorrhage and underwent a randomized fluid resuscitation scheme on separate visits 1) formula-based bolus resuscitation; 2) semiautonomous (decision assist) fluid administration; and 3) fully autonomous (closed loop) resuscitation. Hemodynamic variables, volume shifts, fluid balance, and cardiac function were monitored during hemorrhage and resuscitation. Treatment modalities were compared based on resuscitation efficacy and efficiency. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:All approaches achieved target blood pressure by 60 minutes. Following hemorrhage, the total amount of infused fluid (bolus resuscitation: 30?mL/kg, decision assist: 5.6?±?3?mL/kg, closed loop: 4.2?±?2?mL/kg; p < 0.001), plasma volume, extravascular volume (bolus resuscitation: 17?±?4?mL/kg, decision assist: 3?±?1?mL/kg, closed loop: -0.3?±?0.3?mL/kg; p < 0.001), body weight, and urinary output remained stable under decision assist and closed loop and were significantly increased under bolus resuscitation. Mean arterial pressure initially decreased further under bolus resuscitation (-10?mm Hg; p < 0.001) and was lower under bolus resuscitation than closed loop at 20 minutes (bolus resuscitation: 57?±?2?mm Hg, closed loop: 69?±?4?mm Hg; p = 0.036). Colloid osmotic pressure (bolus resuscitation: 19.3?±?2?mm Hg, decision assist, closed loop: 24?±?0.4?mm Hg; p < 0.05) and hemoglobin concentration were significantly decreased after bolus fluid administration. CONCLUSIONS:We define efficacy of decision-assist and closed-loop resuscitation in human hemorrhage. In comparison with formula-based bolus resuscitation, both semiautonomous and autonomous approaches were more efficient in goal-directed resuscitation of hemorrhage. They provide favorable conditions for the avoidance of over-resuscitation and its adverse clinical sequelae. Decision-assist and closed-loop resuscitation algorithms are promising technological solutions for constrained environments and areas of limited resources.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is the gold standard treatment for adrenal lesions. Robot-assisted adrenalectomy (RAA) is a safe approach, associated with higher costs in absence of clear-cut benefits. Several series reported some advantages of RAA over LA in challenging cases, but definitive conclusions are lacking. We evaluated the cost effectiveness and outcomes of robotic (R-LTA) and laparoscopic (L-LTA) approach for lateral transabdominal adrenalectomy in a high-volume center.MethodsAmong 356 minimally invasive adrenalectomies (January 2012-August 2021), 286 were performed with a lateral transabdominal approach: 191 L-LTA and 95 R-LTA. The R-LTA and L-LTA patients were matched for lesion side and size, hormone secretion, and BMI with propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Postoperative complications, operative time (OT), postoperative stay (POS), and costs were compared.ResultsPSM analysis identified 184 patients, 92 in R-LTA and 92 in L-LTA group. The two groups were well matched. The median lesion size was 4 cm in both groups (p = 0.533). Hormonal hypersecretion was detected in 55 and 54 patients of R-LTA and L-LTA group, respectively (p = 1). Median OT was significantly longer in R-LTA group (90.0 vs 65.0 min) (p < 0.001). No conversion was registered. Median POS was similar (4.0 vs 3.0 days in the R-LTA and L-LTA) (p = 0.467). No difference in postoperative complications was found (p = 1). The cost margin analysis showed a positive income for both procedures (3137 vs 3968 € for R-LTA and L-LTA). In the multiple logistic regression analysis, independent risk factors for postoperative complications were hypercortisolism (OR = 3.926, p = 0.049) and OT > 75 min (OR = 8.177, p = 0.048).ConclusionsThe postoperative outcomes of R-LTA and L-TLA were similar in our experience. Despite the higher cost, RAA appears to be cost effective and economically sustainable in a high-volume center (60 adrenalectomies/year), especially if performed in challenging cases, including patients with large (> 6 cm) and/or functioning tumors.

Dataset Information

Closed-loop assisted versus manual goal-directed fluid therapy during high-risk abdominal surgery: a case-control study with propensity matching.

Publications

Closed-loop assisted versus manual goal-directed fluid therapy during high-risk abdominal surgery: a case-control study with propensity matching.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets