OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation in hospitals' approaches to intraoperative fluid management and their association with postoperative recovery. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in goal-directed, restricted-volume fluid administration for major surgery, there remains little consensus on optimal strategies, due to the lack of institution-level studies of resuscitation practices. METHODS: Among 64 hospitals in a state-wide surgical collaborative, we profiled fluid administration practices during 8404 intestinal resections, 22,854 hysterectomies, and 1471 abdominopelvic endovascular procedures. We computed intraoperative fluid balance, accounting for patient morphometry, crystalloid, colloid, blood products, urine, blood loss, duration, and approach. We stratified hospitals by average fluid balance quartile, and compared patterns across disciplines and associations with risk-adjusted postoperative length of stay (pLOS). RESULTS: There was wide variation in fluid balance between hospitals (P < 0.001, all procedures), but significant within-hospital correlation across operations (Pearson rho: intestinal-hysterectomy = 0.50, intestinal-endovascular = 0.36, hysterectomy-endovascular = 0.54, all P < 0.05). Highest fluid balance hospitals had significantly longer adjusted pLOS than lowest balance hospitals for intestinal resection (6.5 vs 5.7 d, P < 0.001) and hysterectomy (1.9 vs 1.7 d, P < 0.001), but not endovascular (2.1 vs 2.3 d, P = 0.69). Risk-adjusted complication rates were not associated with fluid balance rankings. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals' approaches to intraoperative fluid administration vary widely, and their practice patterns are pervasive across disparate procedures. High fluid balance hospitals have 12% to 14% longer risk-adjusted pLOS for visceral abdominal surgery, independent of patient complexity and complications. These findings are consistent with evidence that isovolemic resuscitation in enhanced recovery protocols accelerates recovery of bowel function.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation in hospitals' approaches to intraoperative fluid management and their association with postoperative recovery. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in goal-directed, restricted-volume fluid administration for major surgery, there remains little consensus on optimal strategies, due to the lack of institution-level studies of resuscitation practices. METHODS: Among 64 hospitals in a state-wide surgical collaborative, we profiled fluid administration practices during 8404 intestinal resections, 22,854 hysterectomies, and 1471 abdominopelvic endovascular procedures. We computed intraoperative fluid balance, accounting for patient morphometry, crystalloid, colloid, blood products, urine, blood loss, duration, and approach. We stratified hospitals by average fluid balance quartile, and compared patterns across disciplines and associations with risk-adjusted postoperative length of stay (pLOS). RESULTS: There was wide variation in fluid balance between hospitals (P < 0.001, all procedures), but significant within-hospital correlation across operations (Pearson rho: intestinal-hysterectomy = 0.50, intestinal-endovascular = 0.36, hysterectomy-endovascular = 0.54, all P < 0.05). Highest fluid balance hospitals had significantly longer adjusted pLOS than lowest balance hospitals for intestinal resection (6.5 vs 5.7 d, P < 0.001) and hysterectomy (1.9 vs 1.7 d, P < 0.001), but not endovascular (2.1 vs 2.3 d, P = 0.69). Risk-adjusted complication rates were not associated with fluid balance rankings. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals' approaches to intraoperative fluid administration vary widely, and their practice patterns are pervasive across disparate procedures. High fluid balance hospitals have 12% to 14% longer risk-adjusted pLOS for visceral abdominal surgery, independent of patient complexity and complications. These findings are consistent with evidence that isovolemic resuscitation in enhanced recovery protocols accelerates recovery of bowel function.
Authors: Atul A Gawande; Mary R Kwaan; Scott E Regenbogen; Stuart A Lipsitz; Michael J Zinner Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-12-27 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Peter C Chong; Elisa F Greco; Danielle Stothart; Donna E Maziak; Sudhir Sundaresan; Farid M Shamji; David Neilipovitz; Lauralyn McIntyre; Paul Hébert; Andrew J E Seely Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.089
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: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Kathrine Holte; Billy B Kristensen; Lotte Valentiner; Nicolai B Foss; Henrik Husted; Henrik Kehlet Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Scott E Regenbogen; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Stuart R Lipsitz; Caprice C Greenberg; Matthew M Hutter; Atul A Gawande Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2009-01
Authors: Jennifer E Baker; Grace E Martin; Gianna Katsaros; Hannah V Lewis; Connor J Wakefield; Sean A Josephs; Vanessa Nomellini; Amy T Makley; Michael D Goodman Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2018-12-05