Dataset Information

Goal-directed versus Standard Fluid Therapy to Decrease Ileus after Open Radical Cystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Postoperative ileus is a common complication of intraabdominal surgeries, including radical cystectomy with reported rates as high as 32%. Perioperative fluid administration has been associated with improvement in postoperative ileus rates, but it is difficult to generalize because earlier studies lacked standardized definitions of postoperative ileus and other relevant outcomes. The hypothesis was that targeted individualized perioperative fluid management would improve postoperative ileus in patients receiving radical cystectomy.

Methods

This is a parallel-arm, double-blinded, single-center randomized trial of goal-directed fluid therapy versus standard fluid therapy for patients undergoing open radical cystectomy. The primary outcome was postoperative ileus, and the secondary outcome was complications within 30 days post-surgery. Participants were at least 21 yr old, had a maximum body mass index of 45 kg/m and no active atrial fibrillation. The intervention in the goal-directed therapy arm combined preoperative and postoperative stroke volume optimization and intraoperative stroke volume variation minimization to guide fluid administration, using advanced hemodynamic monitoring.

Results

Between August 2014 and April 2018, 283 radical cystectomy patients (142 goal-directed fluid therapy and 141 standard fluid therapy) were included in the analysis. Postoperative ileus occurred in 25% (36 of 142) of patients in the goal-directed fluid therapy arm and 21% (30 of 141) of patients in the standard arm (difference in proportions, 4.1%; 95% CI, -5.8 to 13.9; P = 0.418). There was no difference in incidence of high-grade complications between the two arms (20 of 142 [14%] vs. 23 of 141 [16%]; difference in proportions, -2.2%; 95% CI, -10.6 to 6.1; P = 0.602), with the exception of acute kidney injury, which was more frequent in the goal-directed fluid therapy arm (56% [80 of 142] vs. 40% [56 of 141] in the standard arm; difference in proportions, 16.6%; 95% CI, 5.1 to 28.1; P = 0.005; P = 0.170 after adjustment for multiple testing).

Conclusions

Goal-directed fluid therapy may not be an effective strategy for lowering the risk of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing open radical cystectomy.

SUBMITTER: Arslan-Carlon V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8320377 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundOpen radical cystectomy (ORC) and urinary diversion in patients with bladder cancer (BCa) are associated with significant perioperative complication risk.ObjectiveTo compare perioperative complications between robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and ORC techniques.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted during 2010 and 2013 in BCa patients scheduled for definitive treatment by radical cystectomy (RC), pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), and urinary diversion. Patients were randomized to ORC/PLND or RARC/PLND, both with open urinary diversion. Patients were followed for 90 d postoperatively.InterventionStandard ORC or RARC with PLND; all urinary diversions were performed via an open approach.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPrimary outcomes were overall 90-d grade 2-5 complications defined by a modified Clavien system. Secondary outcomes included comparison of high-grade complications, estimated blood loss, operative time, pathologic outcomes, 3- and 6-mo patient-reported quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, and total operative room and inpatient costs. Differences in binary outcomes were assessed with the chi-square test, with differences in continuous outcomes assessed by analysis of covariance with randomization group as covariate and, for QOL end points, baseline score.Results and limitationsThe trial enrolled 124 patients, of whom 118 were randomized and underwent RC/PLND. Sixty were randomized to RARC and 58 to ORC. At 90 d, grade 2-5 complications were observed in 62% and 66% of RARC and ORC patients, respectively (95% confidence interval for difference, -21% to -13%; p=0.7). The similar rates of grade 2-5 complications at our mandated interim analysis met futility criteria; thus, early closure of the trial occurred. The RARC group had lower mean intraoperative blood loss (p=0.027) but significantly longer operative time than the ORC group (p<0.001). Pathologic variables including positive surgical margins and lymph node yields were similar. Mean hospital stay was 8 d in both arms (standard deviation, 3 and 5 d, respectively; p=0.5). Three- and 6-mo QOL outcomes were similar between arms. Cost analysis demonstrated an advantage to ORC compared with RARC. A limitation is the setting at a single high-volume, referral center; our findings may not be generalizable to all settings.ConclusionsThis trial failed to identify a large advantage for robot-assisted techniques over standard open surgery for patients undergoing RC/PLND and urinary diversion. Similar 90-d complication rates, hospital stay, pathologic outcomes, and 3- and 6-mo QOL outcomes were observed regardless of surgical technique.Patient summaryOf 118 patients with bladder cancer who underwent radical cystectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection, and urinary diversion, half were randomized to open surgery and half to robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. We compared the rate of complications within 90 d after surgery for the open group versus the robotic group and found no significant difference between the two groups.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01076387, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Bladder cancer (BC) is a common malignancy and one of the most expensive to manage. Radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymphadenectomy is a gold standard treatment for high-risk BC. Reductions in morbidity and mortality from RC may be achieved through robot-assisted RC (RARC). Prospective comparisons between open RC (ORC) and RARC have been limited by sample size, use of extracorporeal reconstruction and use of outcomes important for ORC. Conversely, while RARC is gaining in popularity, there is little evidence to suggest it is superior to ORC. We are undertaking a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare RARC with intracorporeal reconstruction (iRARC) and ORC using multimodal outcomes to explore qualitative and quantitative recovery after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: iROC is a multicentre prospective RCT in English National Health Service (NHS) cancer centres. We will randomise 320 patients undergoing RC to either iRARC or ORC. Treatment allocation will occur after trial entry and consent. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within the first 90 days from surgery. Secondary outcomes will measure functional recovery (activity trackers, chair-to-stand tests and health related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires), morbidity (complications and readmissions), cost-effectiveness (using EuroQol-5 Domain-5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) and unit costs) and surgeon fatigue. Patients will be analysed according to intention to treat. The primary outcome will be transformed and analysed using regression. All statistical assumptions will be investigated. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using appropriate regression methods. An internal feasibility study of the first 30 patients will evaluate recruitment rates, acceptance of randomised treatment choice, compliance outcome collection and to revise our sample size. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has ethical approval (REC reference 16/NE/0418). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, funders and the NHS through peer-reviewed publications, social media and patient support groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS:ISRCTN13680280 and NCT03049410.