Yanfei Shen1, Guolong Cai2, Shijin Gong1, Jing Yan1. 1. Department of Intensive Care Unit, Zhejiang Hospital, No. 12, Linyin Road, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Intensive Care Unit, Zhejiang Hospital, No. 12, Linyin Road, Hangzhou, 310000, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. caiguolongzhejiang@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perioperative fluid management is a critical component in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. However, the benefit of restricted fluid regimen remains inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to explore potential factors causing these inconsistent findings. METHODS: The literature searches were performed in three databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library until August 30, 2018. Only randomized, controlled trials comparing the effect of restricted versus liberal regimen in abdominal surgery were included. The primary outcome was total postoperative complications. Subgroup analysis was performed according to between-group weight increase difference (≥ 2 kg and < 2 kg) and fluid intake ratio (≥ 1.8 and < 1.8). RESULTS: Sixteen studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. The benefit of the restricted regimen in reducing postoperative complication was only significant in the subgroup with high weight increase difference (≥ 2 kg) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.79) and the subgroup with high fluid intake ratio (≥ 1.8) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.82). In the subgroup with low weight increase difference (< 2 kg) or low fluid intake ratio (< 1.8), the effect of the restricted regimen was not significant (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51-1.50, and RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.91-1.53, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of the restricted regimen was only significant in the subgroup with high weight increase difference (≥ 2 kg) or high fluid intake ratio (≥ 1.8).
BACKGROUND: Perioperative fluid management is a critical component in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. However, the benefit of restricted fluid regimen remains inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to explore potential factors causing these inconsistent findings. METHODS: The literature searches were performed in three databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library until August 30, 2018. Only randomized, controlled trials comparing the effect of restricted versus liberal regimen in abdominal surgery were included. The primary outcome was total postoperative complications. Subgroup analysis was performed according to between-group weight increase difference (≥ 2 kg and < 2 kg) and fluid intake ratio (≥ 1.8 and < 1.8). RESULTS: Sixteen studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. The benefit of the restricted regimen in reducing postoperative complication was only significant in the subgroup with high weight increase difference (≥ 2 kg) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.79) and the subgroup with high fluid intake ratio (≥ 1.8) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.82). In the subgroup with low weight increase difference (< 2 kg) or low fluid intake ratio (< 1.8), the effect of the restricted regimen was not significant (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51-1.50, and RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.91-1.53, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of the restricted regimen was only significant in the subgroup with high weight increase difference (≥ 2 kg) or high fluid intake ratio (≥ 1.8).
Authors: Geralde T McArdle; Daniel F McAuley; Andrew McKinley; Paul Blair; Margaret Hoper; Denis W Harkin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael R Boland; Ayesha Noorani; Kevin Varty; J Calvin Coffey; Riaz Agha; Stewart R Walsh Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Damian Bragg; Ahmed M El-Sharkawy; Emmanouil Psaltis; Charles A Maxwell-Armstrong; Dileep N Lobo Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Patrick Y Wuethrich; Fiona C Burkhard; George N Thalmann; Frank Stueber; Urs E Studer Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Andrew L Tambyraja; Fergus Sengupta; Alasdair B MacGregor; David C C Bartolo; Kenneth C H Fearon Journal: World J Surg Date: 2004-09-29 Impact factor: 3.352