BACKGROUND: A liver resection under low central venous pressure (CVP) has become standard practice; however, the benefits beyond a reduction in blood loss are not well reported. Moreover, the precise method to achieve CVP reduction has not been established. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RTCs) was performed to assess the effects of CVP on clinical outcome and to identify the optimum method of CVP reduction. METHODS: EMBASE, Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched for trials comparing low CVP surgery with controls. The primary outcome was post-operative complications within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rates and length of stay (LOS). Sub-group analysis was performed to assess the CVP reduction method on the outcome. RESULTS: Eight trials were identified. No difference was observed in the morbidity rate between the high CVP and control groups [odds ratio (OR) = 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66, 1.40) P = 0.84, I(2) = 0%]. EBL [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -308.63 ml (95% CI -474.67, -142.58) P = < 0.001, I(2) = 73%] and blood transfusion rates [OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.44, 0.97) P = 0.040, I(2) = 37%] were significantly lower in the low CVP groups. Neither anaesthetic nor surgical methods of CVP reduction were associated with a reduced post-operative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Low CVP surgery is associated with a reduction in EBL; however, this does not translate into an improvement in post-operative morbidity. The optimum method of CVP reduction has not been identified.
BACKGROUND: A liver resection under low central venous pressure (CVP) has become standard practice; however, the benefits beyond a reduction in blood loss are not well reported. Moreover, the precise method to achieve CVP reduction has not been established. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RTCs) was performed to assess the effects of CVP on clinical outcome and to identify the optimum method of CVP reduction. METHODS: EMBASE, Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched for trials comparing low CVP surgery with controls. The primary outcome was post-operative complications within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rates and length of stay (LOS). Sub-group analysis was performed to assess the CVP reduction method on the outcome. RESULTS: Eight trials were identified. No difference was observed in the morbidity rate between the high CVP and control groups [odds ratio (OR) = 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66, 1.40) P = 0.84, I(2) = 0%]. EBL [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -308.63 ml (95% CI -474.67, -142.58) P = < 0.001, I(2) = 73%] and blood transfusion rates [OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.44, 0.97) P = 0.040, I(2) = 37%] were significantly lower in the low CVP groups. Neither anaesthetic nor surgical methods of CVP reduction were associated with a reduced post-operative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Low CVP surgery is associated with a reduction in EBL; however, this does not translate into an improvement in post-operative morbidity. The optimum method of CVP reduction has not been identified.
Authors: U O Gustafsson; M J Scott; W Schwenk; N Demartines; D Roulin; N Francis; C E McNaught; J MacFie; A S Liberman; M Soop; A Hill; R H Kennedy; D N Lobo; K Fearon; O Ljungqvist Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Juan Figueras; Laura Llado; David Ruiz; Emilio Ramos; Juli Busquets; Antonio Rafecas; Jaume Torras; Juan Fabregat Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: L Sand; M Rizell; E Houltz; K Karlsen; J Wiklund; H Odenstedt Hergès; O Stenqvist; S Lundin Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Emmanuel Melloul; Martin Hübner; Michael Scott; Chris Snowden; James Prentis; Cornelis H C Dejong; O James Garden; Olivier Farges; Norihiro Kokudo; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Nicolas Demartines Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Thuy B Tran; David J Worhunsky; David A Spain; Monica M Dua; Brendan C Visser; Jeffrey A Norton; George A Poultsides Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Mark M Smith; Daryl J Kor; Ryan D Frank; Timothy J Weister; Joseph A Dearani; Matthew A Warner Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Jordan M Cloyd; Sherif Abdel-Misih; John Hays; Mary E Dillhoff; Timothy M Pawlik; Carl Schmidt Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rachel M Lee; Adriana C Gamboa; Michael K Turgeon; Mohammad Y Zaidi; Charles Kimbrough; Jennifer Leiting; Travis Grotz; Andrew J Lee; Keith Fournier; Benjamin Powers; Sean Dineen; Joel M Baumgartner; Jula Veerapong; Harveshp Mogal; Callisia Clarke; Gregory Wilson; Sameer Patel; Ryan Hendrix; Laura Lambert; Courtney Pokrzywa; Daniel E Abbott; Christopher J LaRocca; Mustafa Raoof; Jonathan Greer; Fabian M Johnston; Charles A Staley; Jordan M Cloyd; Shishir K Maithel; Maria C Russell Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.454