BACKGROUND: Application of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. Moreover, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the efficacy and safety of LCVP vs. standard CVP for liver resection. Outcomes included operation time, blood loss, blood infusion, fluid infusion, urinary volume, postoperative complication rates, and hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 10 studies, involving 324 patients undergoing liver resection with controlled LCVP, were identified. Meta-analysis displayed that blood loss in the LCVP group was dramatically less than that in the control group (standard CVP group, mean difference (MD): -581.68; 95% CI: -886.32 to -277.05; P=0.0002). Moreover, blood transfusion in the LCVP group was also markedly less than that in the control group (MD: -179.16; 95% CI: -282.00 to -76.33; P=0.0006). However, there was no difference between LCVP group and control group in operation time (MD: -16.24; 95% CI: -39.56 to 7.09; P=0.17), fluid infusion (MD: -287.89; 95% CI: -1,054.47 to 478.69; P=0.46), urinary volume (MD: -26.88; 95% CI: -87.14 to 33.37; P=0.38), ALT (MD: -58.66; 95% CI: -153.81 to 36.50; P=0.23), TBIL (MD: -0.32; 95% CI: -3.93 to 3.28; P=0.86), BUN (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.47; P=0.67), CR (MD: 1.87; 95% CI: -4.90 to 8.63; P=0.59), postoperative complication rates (MD: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.90; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -0.61; 95% CI: -1.68 to 0.46; P=0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the control, controlled LCVP showed comparable efficacy and safety for the treatment during liver resection. 2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Application of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. Moreover, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the efficacy and safety of LCVP vs. standard CVP for liver resection. Outcomes included operation time, blood loss, blood infusion, fluid infusion, urinary volume, postoperative complication rates, and hospital stay. RESULTS: In total, 10 studies, involving 324 patients undergoing liver resection with controlled LCVP, were identified. Meta-analysis displayed that blood loss in the LCVP group was dramatically less than that in the control group (standard CVP group, mean difference (MD): -581.68; 95% CI: -886.32 to -277.05; P=0.0002). Moreover, blood transfusion in the LCVP group was also markedly less than that in the control group (MD: -179.16; 95% CI: -282.00 to -76.33; P=0.0006). However, there was no difference between LCVP group and control group in operation time (MD: -16.24; 95% CI: -39.56 to 7.09; P=0.17), fluid infusion (MD: -287.89; 95% CI: -1,054.47 to 478.69; P=0.46), urinary volume (MD: -26.88; 95% CI: -87.14 to 33.37; P=0.38), ALT (MD: -58.66; 95% CI: -153.81 to 36.50; P=0.23), TBIL (MD: -0.32; 95% CI: -3.93 to 3.28; P=0.86), BUN (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.47; P=0.67), CR (MD: 1.87; 95% CI: -4.90 to 8.63; P=0.59), postoperative complication rates (MD: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.90; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -0.61; 95% CI: -1.68 to 0.46; P=0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the control, controlled LCVP showed comparable efficacy and safety for the treatment during liver resection. 2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Low central venous pressure (LVCP); hepatectomy; meta-analysis
Authors: Claus U Niemann; John Feiner; Matthias Behrends; Helge Eilers; Nancy L Ascher; John P Roberts Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Cheng-Xin Lin; Ya Guo; Wan Yee Lau; Guang-Ying Zhang; Yi-Ting Huang; Wen-Zheng He; Eric C H Lai Journal: Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int Date: 2013-10