Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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

SUBMITTER: Rollins KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4741406 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Rollins Katie E KE Lobo Dileep N DN

Annals of surgery 20160301 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 postoperati ...[more]

PMID: 26445470

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral randomized controlled trials suggest that goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) may result in improved postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and financial impact of the real-life implementation of intraoperative GDFT in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery in a Chinese tertiary medical center.MethodsThis Quality Improvement Program (QIP) study comprised three phases of 5, 1, and 5 months, respectively. During the first phase, we retrospectively collected perioperative data from patients who received standard intraoperative fluid management from January to May 2016. Then a 1-month training period allowed the clinical staff to become familiar with the GDFT protocol. After the training phase, GDFT was used from July to November 2016. In the GDFT group, stroke volume (SV) was continuously monitored and optimized towards the plateau of the Frank-Starling curve. The primary outcome measure was postoperative morbidity (the proportion of patients with one or more complications within 30 days after surgery). Secondary outcomes were total hospital cost, postoperative length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality.ResultsData from 200 patients before (control group) and 201 patients after the implementation of GDFT (GDFT group) were collected and compared. There was no significant difference in demographics and surgical procedures between the two groups. Postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the GDFT group than in the control group (30.8% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.006). No significant differences were observed for mean total hospital cost (76,793 RMB vs. 74,444 RMB; p = 0.430), median postoperative length of hospital stay (10 days vs. 10 days; p = 0.104), and 30-day mortality (1% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.565).ConclusionIn patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, the implementation of a GDFT protocol was associated with a reduction in postoperative morbidity without increasing costs.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02507557. Registered 13 July 2015.

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:BackgroundPerioperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) aiming to maintain individual fluid balance based on sensitive parameters was prevalent in major surgery, especially in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. This meta-analysis was conducted for the purpose of evaluating whether GDFT impacts on occurrence of postoperative ileus and whether its application is worthwhile in gastrointestinal surgery.MethodsA systematic search of RCTs compared GDFT with other fluid management in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery from the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library databases was implemented. The primary outcome is incidence of postoperative ileus. Other outcome measures were length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity and mortality. Subgroup analysis was planed a prior to verify the definite role of GDFT.Results12 trials consisted of 1836 patients were included in the final analysis. GDFT did not influence the occurrence of postoperative ileus (relative risk, RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.47-1.07, P?=?.10), with moderate heterogeneity (I?=?29%, P?=?.16). No difference was found between GDFT and control groups in LOS (mean difference -0.17 days, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.39, P?=?.55), total complication rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05, P?=?.23), and 30-day mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.75, P?=?.77). In other secondary outcomes, only wound infection rate was lower in the GDFT group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93, P?=?.02). When performed subgroup analysis, GDFT was superior in reduction ileus only when compared with standard therapy or in those outside ERAS.ConclusionsIt is possible that GDFT dose not affect the occurrence of postoperative ileus in gastrointestinal surgery. It scarcely influences postoperative morbidity and mortality as well. However, lower incidence of ileus is observed in GDFT group either outside ERAS or compared with standard fluid therapy. Probably, GDFT may not be necessary in the ERAS pathway or if a hybrid approach is adopted.

Project description:BackgroundGoal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based on dynamic indicators of fluid responsiveness has been shown to decrease postoperative complications and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The usefulness of this approach still needs to be clarified in low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery. Both pulse-pressure variation (PPV) and pleth variability index (PVI) can be used to guide GDFT strategies. The objective of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to determine if the use of PVI guided GDFT, when compared to PPV guided GDFT, would lead to similar hospital LOS in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk surgery. Secondary outcomes included amount of fluid administered and incidence of postoperative complications.MethodsPatients were randomized into either PVI or PPV guided GDFT groups. Both received a baseline 2 ml kg- 1 h- 1 Lactated Ringer infusion. Additional fluid boluses consisted of 250 mL of colloid that was infused over a 10 min period if PVI was > 15% or PPV was > 13% for at least five minutes. The primary outcome was to determine if hospital LOS, which was defined as the number of days from surgery up to the day the surgeon authorized hospital discharge, was equivalent between the two groups.ResultsA total of 76 patients were included and they were randomized into two groups of 38 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Both PVI and PPV guided GDFT strategies were equivalent for the primary outcome of LOS (median [interquartile range]) (days) 2.5 [2.0-3.3] vs. 3.0 [2.0-5.0], p = 0.230, respectively. Fluids infused, postoperative complications, and all other outcomes were not different between groups.ConclusionIn patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery, PVI seems to guide GDFT similarly to PPV in regards to hospital LOS, amount of fluid, and incidence of postoperative complications. However, in low-risk patients undergoing these surgical procedures optimizing stroke volume may have limited impact on outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908256 , September 2016, retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundAppropriate 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsIrrespectively to the amount of perioperative fluid administered, GDT strategy reduces postoperative complications, but not perioperative mortality.Trial registrationCRD42020168866; Registration: February 2020 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=168866.

Dataset Information

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

Objectives

Methods

Results

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets