BACKGROUND: There are no current standards of care guiding perioperative fluid administration, and clinicians continue to debate restrictive versus liberal fluid administration. We sought to simultaneously evaluate the opinions and practice of surgeons, intensivists and anesthesiologists in a single centre regarding perioperative fluid resuscitation. METHODS: A postal survey sent to surgeons, intensivists and anesthesiologists in a single academic health care centre presented case-based scenarios followed by questions on fluid requirements and 5-point Likert scales involving statements about resuscitation. We performed a retrospective chart review to evaluate amount and type of intra-and postoperative (72-h) fluid administration, urine output and postoperative ventilation time in patients undergoing uncomplicated esophagectomy or pneumonectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-four of 77 respondents (96%) agreed that precise fluid resuscitation diminishes the risk of adverse events. Surgeons overall gave less fluids than anesthesiologists or intensivists and used fewer resuscitation end points to estimate fluid requirements perioperatively. For right hemicolectomies, only 3% of surgeons chose a fluid rate greater than 150 mL/h, compared with 55% of intensivists. We reviewed 49 patients' charts (25 who had pneumonectomies, 24 who had esophagectomies) retrospectively. The coefficient of variation (COV = standard deviation divided by its mean) of fluid administration intraoperatively was 0.56 for pneumonectomy and 0.35 for esophagectomy; postoperatively, the COV was greater than 0.50 for the first 24 hours, but less than 0.50 after 24 hours postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The presence of substantial variability of both opinion and practice of perioperative fluid resuscitation in a single centre supports the need for further research to identify objective methods to define perioperative fluid requirements and standards of perioperative resuscitation.
BACKGROUND: There are no current standards of care guiding perioperative fluid administration, and clinicians continue to debate restrictive versus liberal fluid administration. We sought to simultaneously evaluate the opinions and practice of surgeons, intensivists and anesthesiologists in a single centre regarding perioperative fluid resuscitation. METHODS: A postal survey sent to surgeons, intensivists and anesthesiologists in a single academic health care centre presented case-based scenarios followed by questions on fluid requirements and 5-point Likert scales involving statements about resuscitation. We performed a retrospective chart review to evaluate amount and type of intra-and postoperative (72-h) fluid administration, urine output and postoperative ventilation time in patients undergoing uncomplicated esophagectomy or pneumonectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-four of 77 respondents (96%) agreed that precise fluid resuscitation diminishes the risk of adverse events. Surgeons overall gave less fluids than anesthesiologists or intensivists and used fewer resuscitation end points to estimate fluid requirements perioperatively. For right hemicolectomies, only 3% of surgeons chose a fluid rate greater than 150 mL/h, compared with 55% of intensivists. We reviewed 49 patients' charts (25 who had pneumonectomies, 24 who had esophagectomies) retrospectively. The coefficient of variation (COV = standard deviation divided by its mean) of fluid administration intraoperatively was 0.56 for pneumonectomy and 0.35 for esophagectomy; postoperatively, the COV was greater than 0.50 for the first 24 hours, but less than 0.50 after 24 hours postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The presence of substantial variability of both opinion and practice of perioperative fluid resuscitation in a single centre supports the need for further research to identify objective methods to define perioperative fluid requirements and standards of perioperative resuscitation.
Authors: E Rivers; B Nguyen; S Havstad; J Ressler; A Muzzin; B Knoblich; E Peterson; M Tomlanovich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dileep N Lobo; Kate A Bostock; Keith R Neal; Alan C Perkins; Brian J Rowlands; Simon P Allison Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-05-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Tong J Gan; Andrew Soppitt; Mohamed Maroof; Habib el-Moalem; Kerri M Robertson; Eugene Moretti; Peter Dwane; Peter S A Glass Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Cem F Arkiliç; Akiko Taguchi; Neeru Sharma; Jebadurai Ratnaraj; Daniel I Sessler; Thomas E Read; James W Fleshman; Andrea Kurz Journal: Surgery Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Brian P Chen; Marian Chen; Sean Bennett; Kristina Lemon; Kimberly A Bertens; Fady K Balaa; Guillaume Martel Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Scott E Regenbogen; Nirav J Shah; Stacey D Collins; Samantha Hendren; Michael J Englesbe; Darrell A Campbell Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Hernando Raphael Alvis-Miranda; Andres M Rubiano; Juan C Puyana; Gabriel Alcala-Cerra; Luis Rafael Moscote-Salazar Journal: Rev Health Care Date: 2014