Florence Grant1, Murray F Brennan, Peter J Allen, Ronald P DeMatteo, T Peter Kingham, Michael D'Angelica, Mary E Fischer, Mithat Gonen, Hao Zhang, William R Jarnagin. 1. *Departments of Anesthesiology and Surgery, Memorial Hospital, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY †Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Hospital, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY ‡Department of Surgery, Memorial Hospital, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY §Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Hospital, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine, by a prospective randomized controlled trial, the influence of liberal (LIB) vs restricted (RES) perioperative fluid administration on morbidity following pancreatectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery have challenged the historical use of LIB fluid administration, suggesting that a more restricted regimen may be associated with fewer postoperative complications. METHODS:Patients scheduled to undergo pancreatic resection were consented for randomization to a LIB (n = 164) or RES (n = 166) perioperative fluid regimen. Sample size was designed with 80% power to decrease Grade 3 complications from 35% to 21%. RESULTS:Between July 2009 and July 2015, we randomized 330 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD, n = 218), central (n = 16), or distal pancreatectomy (DP, n = 96). Patients were equally distributed for all demographic and intraoperative characteristics. Intraoperatively, LIB patients received crystalloid 12 mL/kg/h and RES patients 6 mL/kg/h. Cumulative crystalloid given (median, range, mL) days 0 to 3 was LIB: 12,252 (6600 to 21,365), RES 7808 (2700 to 16,274) P < 0.0001. Sixty-day mortality was 2 of 330 (0.6%). Median operative time for PD was 227 minutes (105 to 462) and DP 150 (44 to 323). Grade 3 complications occurred in 20% of LIB and 27% of RES patients (P = 0.6). Median length of stay was 7 and 5 days for PD and DP, respectively, in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a high volume institution, major perioperative complications from pancreatic resection were not significantly influenced by fluid regimens that differed approximately 1.6-fold.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine, by a prospective randomized controlled trial, the influence of liberal (LIB) vs restricted (RES) perioperative fluid administration on morbidity following pancreatectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery have challenged the historical use of LIB fluid administration, suggesting that a more restricted regimen may be associated with fewer postoperative complications. METHODS:Patients scheduled to undergo pancreatic resection were consented for randomization to a LIB (n = 164) or RES (n = 166) perioperative fluid regimen. Sample size was designed with 80% power to decrease Grade 3 complications from 35% to 21%. RESULTS: Between July 2009 and July 2015, we randomized 330 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD, n = 218), central (n = 16), or distal pancreatectomy (DP, n = 96). Patients were equally distributed for all demographic and intraoperative characteristics. Intraoperatively, LIB patients received crystalloid 12 mL/kg/h and RES patients 6 mL/kg/h. Cumulative crystalloid given (median, range, mL) days 0 to 3 was LIB: 12,252 (6600 to 21,365), RES 7808 (2700 to 16,274) P < 0.0001. Sixty-day mortality was 2 of 330 (0.6%). Median operative time for PD was 227 minutes (105 to 462) and DP 150 (44 to 323). Grade 3 complications occurred in 20% of LIB and 27% of RES patients (P = 0.6). Median length of stay was 7 and 5 days for PD and DP, respectively, in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a high volume institution, major perioperative complications from pancreatic resection were not significantly influenced by fluid regimens that differed approximately 1.6-fold.
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: 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: Edward J Tanner; Olga T Filippova; Ginger J Gardner; Kara C Long Roche; Yukio Sonoda; Oliver Zivanovic; Mary Fischer; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mikaela L Garland; Hamish S Mace; Andrew D MacCormick; Stuart A McCluskey; Nicholas J Lightfoot Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Leah K Winer; Vikrom K Dhar; Koffi Wima; Tiffany C Lee; Mackenzie C Morris; Shimul A Shah; Syed A Ahmad; Sameer H Patel Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Oliver S Eng; Sinziana Dumitra; Michael O'Leary; Mustafa Raoof; Mark Wakabayashi; Thanh H Dellinger; Ernest S Han; Stephen J Lee; I Benjamin Paz; Byrne Lee Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Antonio Messina; Chiara Robba; Lorenzo Calabrò; Daniel Zambelli; Francesca Iannuzzi; Edoardo Molinari; Silvia Scarano; Denise Battaglini; Marta Baggiani; Giacomo De Mattei; Laura Saderi; Giovanni Sotgiu; Paolo Pelosi; Maurizio Cecconi Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 9.097