Piia Peltoniemi1,2, Pertti Pere3, Harri Mustonen4,5, Hanna Seppänen4,5. 1. Department of Perioperative, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. piia.peltoniemi@helsinki.fi. 2. Translational Cancer Medicine Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. piia.peltoniemi@helsinki.fi. 3. Department of Perioperative, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 5. Translational Cancer Medicine Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal fluid management in pancreaticoduodenectomy patients remains contested. We aimed to examine the association between perioperative fluid administration and postoperative complications. METHODS: We studied 168 pancreaticoduodenectomy patients operated in 2015 (n = 93) or 2017 (n = 75) at Helsinki University Hospital. In 2015, patients received intraoperative fluids following a goal-directed approach and, in 2017, according to anesthesiologist's clinical practice (conventional fluid management). We analyzed the differences in perioperative fluid administration between the groups, specifically examining the occurrence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), pancreatic fistulas, cardiovascular complications, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The goal-directed group received more intraoperative fluids than the conventional fluid management group (12.0 ml/kg/h vs. 8.3 ml/kg/h, p < 0.001). Urine output (770 ml vs. 575 ml, p = 0.004) and intraoperative fluid balance (9.4 ml/kg/h vs. 6.3 ml/kg/h, p < 0.001) were higher in the goal-directed group than in the conventional fluid management group. Severe surgical complications (19.4% vs. 38.7%, p = 0.009) as well as clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas (1.1% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.011) occurred more frequently in patients receiving conventional fluid management. Moreover, the conventional fluid management group experienced longer hospital stays (9.0 vs. 11.5 days, p = 0.02). Lower intraoperative fluid volume accompanying conventional fluid management was associated with a higher risk of severe postoperative complications compared with higher volume in the goal-directed group (odds ratio 2.58 (95% confidence interval 1.04-6.42), p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: The goal-directed group experienced severe complications less frequently. Our findings indicate that optimizing the intraoperative fluid administration benefits patients, while adopting a too-restrictive approach represents an inferior choice.
BACKGROUND: Optimal fluid management in pancreaticoduodenectomy patients remains contested. We aimed to examine the association between perioperative fluid administration and postoperative complications. METHODS: We studied 168 pancreaticoduodenectomy patients operated in 2015 (n = 93) or 2017 (n = 75) at Helsinki University Hospital. In 2015, patients received intraoperative fluids following a goal-directed approach and, in 2017, according to anesthesiologist's clinical practice (conventional fluid management). We analyzed the differences in perioperative fluid administration between the groups, specifically examining the occurrence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), pancreatic fistulas, cardiovascular complications, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The goal-directed group received more intraoperative fluids than the conventional fluid management group (12.0 ml/kg/h vs. 8.3 ml/kg/h, p < 0.001). Urine output (770 ml vs. 575 ml, p = 0.004) and intraoperative fluid balance (9.4 ml/kg/h vs. 6.3 ml/kg/h, p < 0.001) were higher in the goal-directed group than in the conventional fluid management group. Severe surgical complications (19.4% vs. 38.7%, p = 0.009) as well as clinically relevant pancreatic fistulas (1.1% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.011) occurred more frequently in patients receiving conventional fluid management. Moreover, the conventional fluid management group experienced longer hospital stays (9.0 vs. 11.5 days, p = 0.02). Lower intraoperative fluid volume accompanying conventional fluid management was associated with a higher risk of severe postoperative complications compared with higher volume in the goal-directed group (odds ratio 2.58 (95% confidence interval 1.04-6.42), p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: The goal-directed group experienced severe complications less frequently. Our findings indicate that optimizing the intraoperative fluid administration benefits patients, while adopting a too-restrictive approach represents an inferior choice.
Authors: Stephen R Grobmyer; Fredric M Pieracci; Peter J Allen; Murray F Brennan; David P Jaques Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Massimiliano Greco; Giovanni Capretti; Luigi Beretta; Marco Gemma; Nicolò Pecorelli; Marco Braga Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Katherine A Morgan; William P Lancaster; Megan L Walters; Stefanie M Owczarski; Carlee A Clark; Julie R McSwain; David B Adams Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Kristoffer Lassen; Marielle M E Coolsen; Karem Slim; Francesco Carli; José E de Aguilar-Nascimento; Markus Schäfer; Rowan W Parks; Kenneth C H Fearon; Dileep N Lobo; Nicolas Demartines; Marco Braga; Olle Ljungqvist; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Patricia Sánchez-Velázquez; Xavier Muller; Giuseppe Malleo; Joon-Seong Park; Ho-Kyoung Hwang; Niccolò Napoli; Ammar A Javed; Yosuke Inoue; Nassiba Beghdadi; Marit Kalisvaart; Emanuel Vigia; Carrie D Walsh; Brendan Lovasik; Juli Busquets; Chiara Scandavini; Fabien Robin; Hideyuki Yoshitomi; Tara M Mackay; Olivier R Busch; Hermien Hartog; Stefan Heinrich; Ana Gleisner; Julie Perinel; Michael Passeri; Nuria Lluis; Dimitri A Raptis; Christoph Tschuor; Christian E Oberkofler; Michelle L DeOliveira; Henrik Petrowsky; John Martinie; Horacio Asbun; Mustapha Adham; Richard Schulick; Hauke Lang; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Marc G Besselink; Ho-Seong Han; Masaru Miyazaki; Cristina R Ferrone; Carlos Fernández-Del Castillo; Keith D Lillemoe; Laurent Sulpice; Karim Boudjema; Marco Del Chiaro; Joan Fabregat; David A Kooby; Peter Allen; Harish Lavu; Charles J Yeo; Eduardo Barroso; Keith Roberts; Paolo Muiesan; Alain Sauvanet; Akio Saiura; Christopher L Wolfgang; John L Cameron; Ugo Boggi; Dong-Sup Yoon; Claudio Bassi; Milo A Puhan; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michelle L DeOliveira; Jordan M Winter; Markus Schafer; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amudhan Pugalenthi; Mladjan Protic; Mithat Gonen; T Peter Kingham; Michael I D' Angelica; Ronald P Dematteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: A Feldheiser; O Aziz; G Baldini; B P B W Cox; K C H Fearon; L S Feldman; T J Gan; R H Kennedy; O Ljungqvist; D N Lobo; T Miller; F F Radtke; T Ruiz Garces; T Schricker; M J Scott; J K Thacker; L M Ytrebø; F Carli Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 2.105