Dataset Information

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Liberal Vs Restricted Perioperative Fluid Management in Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to examine, by a prospective randomized controlled trial, the influence of liberal (LIB) vs restricted (RES) perioperative fluid administration on morbidity following pancreatectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery have challenged the historical use of LIB fluid administration, suggesting that a more restricted regimen may be associated with fewer postoperative complications. METHODS:Patients scheduled to undergo pancreatic resection were consented for randomization to a LIB (n = 164) or RES (n = 166) perioperative fluid regimen. Sample size was designed with 80% power to decrease Grade 3 complications from 35% to 21%. RESULTS:Between July 2009 and July 2015, we randomized 330 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD, n = 218), central (n = 16), or distal pancreatectomy (DP, n = 96). Patients were equally distributed for all demographic and intraoperative characteristics. Intraoperatively, LIB patients received crystalloid 12?mL/kg/h and RES patients 6?mL/kg/h. Cumulative crystalloid given (median, range, mL) days 0 to 3 was LIB: 12,252 (6600 to 21,365), RES 7808 (2700 to 16,274) P < 0.0001. Sixty-day mortality was 2 of 330 (0.6%). Median operative time for PD was 227?minutes (105 to 462) and DP 150 (44 to 323). Grade 3 complications occurred in 20% of LIB and 27% of RES patients (P = 0.6). Median length of stay was 7 and 5 days for PD and DP, respectively, in both arms. CONCLUSIONS:In a high volume institution, major perioperative complications from pancreatic resection were not significantly influenced by fluid regimens that differed approximately 1.6-fold.

SUBMITTER: Grant F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5017901 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Liberal Vs Restricted Perioperative Fluid Management in Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy.

Grant Florence F Brennan Murray F MF Allen Peter J PJ DeMatteo Ronald P RP Kingham T Peter TP D'Angelica Michael M Fischer Mary E ME Gonen Mithat M Zhang Hao H Jarnagin William R WR

Annals of surgery 20161001 4

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study is to examine, by a prospective randomized controlled trial, the influence of liberal (LIB) vs restricted (RES) perioperative fluid administration on morbidity following pancreatectomy.<h4>Summary of background data</h4>Randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery have challenged the historical use of LIB fluid administration, suggesting that a more restricted regimen may be associated with fewer postoperative complicat ...[more]

PMID: 27355261

Similar Datasets

Project description:The effect of perioperative acupuncture on accelerating gastrointestinal function recovery has been reported in colorectal surgery and distal gastrectomy (Billroth-II). However, the evidence in pancreatectomy and other gastrectomy is still limited. A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted between May 2018 and August 2019. Consecutive patients undergoing pancreatectomy or gastrectomy in our hospital were randomly assigned to the electroacupuncture (EA) group and the control group. The patients in the EA group received transcutaneous EA on Bai-hui (GV20), Nei-guan (PC6), Tian-shu (ST25), and Zu-san-li (ST36) once a day in the afternoon, and the control group received sham EA. Primary outcomes were the time to first flatus and time to first defecation. In total, 461 patients were randomly assigned to the groups, and 385 were analyzed finally (EA group, n = 201; control group, n = 184). Time to first flatus (3.0 ± 0.7 vs 4.2 ± 1.0, P < 0.001) and first defecation (4.2 ± 0.9 vs 5.4 ± 1.2, P < 0.001) in the EA group were significantly shorter than those in the control group. Of patients undergoing pancreatectomy, those undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy and intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) surgery benefitted from EA in time to first flatus (P < 0.001) and first defecation (P < 0.001), while those undergoing distal pancreatectomy did not (P flatus=0.157, P defecation=0.007) completely. Of patients undergoing gastrectomy, those undergoing total gastrectomy and distal gastrectomy (Billroth-II) benefitted from EA (P < 0.001), as did those undergoing proximal gastrectomy (P=0.015). Patients undergoing distal gastrectomy (Billroth-I) benefitted from EA in time to first defecation (P=0.012) but not flatus (P=0.051). The time of parenteral nutrition, hospital stay, and time to first independent walk in the EA group were shorter than those in the control group. No severe EA complications were reported. EA was safe and effective in accelerating postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery. Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, IORT surgery, total gastrectomy, proximal gastrectomy, or distal gastrectomy (Billroth-II) could benefit from EA. This trial is registered with NCT03291574.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients' outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded.ResultsAfter full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (- 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0-66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02-0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups CONCLUSIONS: In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive.Trial registrationCRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059 .

Project description:There has been recent progress in intraoperative fluid therapy. However, little is known about intraoperative fluid therapy in laparoscopic surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are differences in the basal fluid requirements during surgery between laparotomy and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.This retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of 253 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy via either laparotomy (73 patients) or laparoscopy (180 patients) between June 2006 and March 2016. The volume of intraoperative fluid administered, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate were evaluated. The total volume of fluids was calculated as the sum of the volume of crystalloid plus the volume of colloid multiplied by 1.5 or 2.0.Patients who had laparotomy were older and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes. Anesthesia time was longer and estimated blood loss was larger in laparotomy. More colloid (1.8?mL/kg per h vs. 1.2?mL/kg per h, P?<?.001) and more total calculated fluid (1.5 times: 11.7?mL/kg per h vs. 10.6?mL/kg per h, P?=?.002; 2.0 times: 12.6?mL/kg per h vs. 11.2?mL/kg per h, P?=?.001) were infused in laparotomy. Crystalloid (9.0?mL/kg per h vs. 8.9?mL/kg per h, P?=?.203) did not show significant difference. Postoperative complications were more frequent (63% vs. 45%, P?=?.008), the hospital stay was longer (18 days vs. 13.4 days, P?<?.001), and readmission rate was higher (15% vs. 5.6%, P?=?.02) in laparotomy. By logistic regression analysis, we could find that operation type (laparotomy vs. laparoscopy, odds ratio 1.900, 95% confidence interval 1.072-3.368) and operation time (P?=?.004) had effect on complications.In patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy, basal fluid requirements were larger in laparotomy compared with laparoscopy. Operation time and estimated blood loss had effects on fluid administration. Postoperative complications were more frequent in laparotomy but we could not find relationships with infused colloid or total calculated fluid volumes. Operation type (laparotomy vs. laparoscopy) and operation time were the only related factors to postoperative complications.

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and although pancreatectomy is currently the only curative treatment, it is associated with significant morbidity.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of wearable telemonitoring technologies to predict treatment outcomes using patient activity metrics and machine learning.MethodsIn this prospective, single-center, single-cohort study, patients scheduled for pancreatectomy were provided with a wearable telemonitoring device to be worn prior to surgery. Patient clinical data were collected and all patients were evaluated using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator (ACS-NSQIP SRC). Machine learning models were developed to predict whether patients would have a textbook outcome and compared with the ACS-NSQIP SRC using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves.ResultsBetween February 2019 and February 2020, 48 patients completed the study. Patient activity metrics were collected over an average of 27.8 days before surgery. Patients took an average of 4162.1 (SD 4052.6) steps per day and had an average heart rate of 75.6 (SD 14.8) beats per minute. Twenty-eight (58%) patients had a textbook outcome after pancreatectomy. The group of 20 (42%) patients who did not have a textbook outcome included 14 patients with severe complications and 11 patients requiring readmission. The ACS-NSQIP SRC had an AUROC curve of 0.6333 to predict failure to achieve a textbook outcome, while our model combining patient clinical characteristics and patient activity data achieved the highest performance with an AUROC curve of 0.7875.ConclusionsMachine learning models outperformed ACS-NSQIP SRC estimates in predicting textbook outcomes after pancreatectomy. The highest performance was observed when machine learning models incorporated patient clinical characteristics and activity metrics.

Project description:We aimed to evaluate perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without a cardiac output goal directed therapy (GDT) algorithm. We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial in four high volume hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery centres. We evaluated whether the additional impact of a intraoperative fluid optimisation algorithm would influence the amount of fluid delivered, reduce fluid related complications, and improve length of hospital stay. Fifty-two consecutive adult patients were recruited. The median (IQR) duration of surgery was 8.6 hours (7.1:9.6) in the GDT group vs. 7.8 hours (6.8:9.0) in the usual care group (p = 0.2). Intraoperative fluid balance was 1005mL (475:1873) in the GDT group vs. 3300mL (2474:3874) in the usual care group (p<0.0001). Total volume of fluid administered intraoperatively was also lower in the GDT group: 2050mL (1313:2700) vs. 4088mL (3400:4525), p<0.0001 and vasoactive medications were used more frequently. There were no significant differences in proportions of patients experiencing overall complications (p = 0.179); however, fewer complications occurred in the GDT group: 44 vs. 92 (Incidence Rate Ratio: 0.41; 95%CI 0.24 to 0.69, p = 0.001). Median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 9.5 days (IQR: 7.0, 14.3) in the GDT vs. 12.5 days in the usual care group (IQR: 9.0, 22.3) for an Incidence Rate Ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.85, p = 0.002). In conclusion, using a surgery-specific, patient-specific goal directed restrictive fluid therapy algorithm in this cohort of patients, can justify using enough fluid without causing oedema, yet as little fluid as possible without causing hypovolaemia i.e. "precision" fluid therapy. Our findings support the use of a perioperative haemodynamic optimization plan that prioritizes preservation of cardiac output and organ perfusion pressure by judicious use of fluid therapy, rational use of vasoactive drugs and timely application of inotropic drugs. They also suggest the need for further larger studies to confirm its findings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence for benefit of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is largely lacking for invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs. We hypothesize that ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP with regard to the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28 in this population. METHODS/DESIGN: The "REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS" trial (RELAx) is a national, multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with uninjured lungs who are expected not to be extubated within 24 h. RELAx will run in 13 ICUs in the Netherlands to enroll 980 patients under invasive ventilation. In all patients, low tidal volumes are used. Patients assigned to ventilation with low PEEP will receive the lowest possible PEEP between 0 and 5 cm H2O, while patients assigned to ventilation with high PEEP will receive PEEP of 8 cm H2O. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28, a composite endpoint for liberation from the ventilator and mortality until day 28, with a noninferiority margin for a difference between groups of 0.5 days. Secondary endpoints are length of stay (LOS), mortality, and occurrence of pulmonary complications, including severe hypoxemia, major atelectasis, need for rescue therapies, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Hemodynamic support and sedation needs will be collected and compared. DISCUSSION:RELAx will be the first sufficiently sized randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs using a clinically relevant and objective endpoint to determine whether invasive, low-tidal-volume ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03167580 . Registered on 23 May 2017.

Dataset Information

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Liberal Vs Restricted Perioperative Fluid Management in Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy.

Publications

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Liberal Vs Restricted Perioperative Fluid Management in Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure