BACKGROUND: The optimal perioperative fluid resuscitation strategy for liver resections remains undefined. Goal-directed therapy (GDT) embodies a number of physiologic strategies to achieve an ideal fluid balance and avoid the consequences of over- or under-resuscitation. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective randomized trial, patients undergoing liver resection were randomized to GDT using stroke volume variation as an end point or to standard perioperative resuscitation. Primary outcomes measure was 30-day morbidity. RESULTS:Between 2012 and 2014, one hundred and thirty-five patients were randomized (GDT: n = 69; standard perioperative resuscitation: n = 66). Median age was 57 years and 56% were male. Metastatic disease comprised 81% of patients. Overall (35% GDT vs 36% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.86) and grade 3 morbidity (28% GDT vs 18% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.22) were equivalent. Patients in the GDT arm received less intraoperative fluid (mean 2.0 L GDT vs 2.9 L standard perioperative resuscitation; p < 0.001). Perioperative transfusions were required in 4% (6% GDT vs 2% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.37) and boluses in the postanesthesia care unit were administered to 24% (29% GDT vs 20% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.23). Mortality rate was 1% (2 of 135 patients; both in GDT). On multivariable analysis, male sex, age, combined procedures, higher intraoperative fluid volume, and fluid boluses in the postanesthesia care unit were associated with higher 30-day morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke volume variation-guided GDT is safe in patients undergoing liver resection and led to less intraoperative fluid. Although the incidence of postoperative complications was similar in both arms, lower intraoperative resuscitation volume was independently associated with decreased postoperative morbidity in the entire cohort. Future studies should target extensive resections and identify patients receiving large resuscitation volumes, as this population is more likely to benefit from this technique.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The optimal perioperative fluid resuscitation strategy for liver resections remains undefined. Goal-directed therapy (GDT) embodies a number of physiologic strategies to achieve an ideal fluid balance and avoid the consequences of over- or under-resuscitation. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective randomized trial, patients undergoing liver resection were randomized to GDT using stroke volume variation as an end point or to standard perioperative resuscitation. Primary outcomes measure was 30-day morbidity. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2014, one hundred and thirty-five patients were randomized (GDT: n = 69; standard perioperative resuscitation: n = 66). Median age was 57 years and 56% were male. Metastatic disease comprised 81% of patients. Overall (35% GDT vs 36% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.86) and grade 3 morbidity (28% GDT vs 18% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.22) were equivalent. Patients in the GDT arm received less intraoperative fluid (mean 2.0 L GDT vs 2.9 L standard perioperative resuscitation; p < 0.001). Perioperative transfusions were required in 4% (6% GDT vs 2% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.37) and boluses in the postanesthesia care unit were administered to 24% (29% GDT vs 20% standard perioperative resuscitation; p = 0.23). Mortality rate was 1% (2 of 135 patients; both in GDT). On multivariable analysis, male sex, age, combined procedures, higher intraoperative fluid volume, and fluid boluses in the postanesthesia care unit were associated with higher 30-day morbidity. CONCLUSIONS:Stroke volume variation-guided GDT is safe in patients undergoing liver resection and led to less intraoperative fluid. Although the incidence of postoperative complications was similar in both arms, lower intraoperative resuscitation volume was independently associated with decreased postoperative morbidity in the entire cohort. Future studies should target extensive resections and identify patients receiving large resuscitation volumes, as this population is more likely to benefit from this technique.
Authors: Aakash Chauhan; Michael G House; Henry A Pitt; Attila Nakeeb; Thomas J Howard; Nicholas J Zyromski; C Max Schmidt; Chad G Ball; Keith D Lillemoe Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: David A Kooby; Jennifer Stockman; Leah Ben-Porat; Mithat Gonen; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P Dematteo; Scott Tuorto; David Wuest; Leslie H Blumgart; Yuman Fong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rupert M Pearse; David A Harrison; Neil MacDonald; Michael A Gillies; Mark Blunt; Gareth Ackland; Michael P W Grocott; Aoife Ahern; Kathryn Griggs; Rachael Scott; Charles Hinds; Kathryn Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cornelie Salzwedel; Jaume Puig; Arne Carstens; Berthold Bein; Zsolt Molnar; Krisztian Kiss; Ayyaz Hussain; Javier Belda; Mikhail Y Kirov; Samir G Sakka; Daniel A Reuter Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-09-08 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: J Madison Hyer; Joal D Beane; Gaya Spolverato; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Adrian Diaz; Alessandro Paro; Djhenne Dalmacy; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 3.452