Literature DB >> 19955507

What is the preferred central venous pressure zero reference for hepatic resection?

Chris Giordano1, Lori A Deitte, Nikolaus Gravenstein, Mark J Rice.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The common practice of maintaining central venous pressure (CVP) below 5 mm Hg to reduce blood loss during hepatic resection increases the risk of venous air embolism (VAE). We initiated this study after observing that the anteroposterior (AP) diameter of the liver can be much larger than 7 cm, which is the approximate hydrostatic pressure corresponding to a CVP of 5 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 1.36 cm H(2)O). The purpose of this study was to characterize the liver AP diameter and thereby describe how this might affect the placement of the CVP transducer to balance the risks of bleeding and VAE.
METHODS: We measured the AP liver diameter and its distance from other anatomic sites using consecutive archived chest tomograms with IV contrast from 100 adults.
RESULTS: The results of our study demonstrate a large interindividual range in AP liver dimensions (17.9 + or - 2.8 cm, range = 12.0-28.5 cm) and standardized anatomic landmarks relative to the portal triad.
CONCLUSIONS: The significant variability in AP liver diameter, along with the variability in the liver surgical site, suggests that we rethink the zero reference point for the CVP transducer during hepatic surgeries. By considering the actual hepatic venous pressure itself, rather than the CVP, we can minimize the risks of VAE and hemorrhage. Two methods for zeroing the reference transducer are suggested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19955507     DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c76d3e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  6 in total

1.  Factors in perioperative care that determine blood loss in liver surgery.

Authors:  Stephen J McNally; Erica J Revie; Lisa J Massie; Dermot W McKeown; Rowan W Parks; O James Garden; Stephen J Wigmore
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  [Vital borderline situations mastered together].

Authors:  J U Bleyl
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 3.  [Central venous pressure in liver surgery : A primary therapeutic goal or a hemodynamic tessera?]

Authors:  C R Behem; M F Gräßler; C J C Trepte
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Major liver resection, systemic fibrinolytic activity, and the impact of tranexamic acid.

Authors:  Paul J Karanicolas; Yulia Lin; Jordan Tarshis; Calvin H L Law; Natalie G Coburn; Julie Hallet; Barto Nascimento; Janusz Pawliszyn; Stuart A McCluskey
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 5.  Fluid management in living donor hepatectomy: Recent issues and perspectives.

Authors:  Seong-Soo Choi; Sung-Hoon Kim; Young-Kug Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Tranexamic acid versus placebo to reduce perioperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing liver resection: protocol for the haemorrhage during liver resection tranexamic acid (HeLiX) randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Paul Jack Karanicolas; Yulia Lin; Stuart McCluskey; Rachel Roke; Jordan Tarshis; Kevin E Thorpe; Chad G Ball; Prosanto Chaudhury; Sean P Cleary; Elijah Dixon; Gareth Eeson; Carol-Anne Moulton; Sulaiman Nanji; Geoff Porter; Leyo Ruo; Anton I Skaro; Melanie Tsang; Alice C Wei; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.