Lee Jiwon, Kim Won Ho, Ryu Ho-Geol, Lee Hyung-Chul, Chung Eun-Jin, Yang Seong-Mi, Jung Chul-Woo
From the *Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University College of Medicine; and †Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Anesth Analg. 2017 Aug;125(2):423-430. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002197.
We previously demonstrated the usefulness of milrinone for living donor hepatectomy. However, a less-invasive alternative to central venous catheterization and perioperative contributors to good surgical outcomes remain undetermined. The current study evaluated whether the stroke volume variation (SVV)-guided method can substitute central venous catheterization during milrinone-induced profound vasodilation.
We randomly assigned 42 living liver donors to receive either SVV guidance or central venous pressure (CVP) guidance to obtain milrinone-induced low CVP. Target SVV of 9% was used as a substitute for CVP of 5 mm Hg. The surgical field grade evaluated by 2 attending surgeons on a 4-point scale was compared between the CVP- and SVV-guided groups (n = 19, total number of scores = 38 per group) as a primary outcome variable. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent factors associated with the best surgical field as a post hoc analysis.
Surgical field grades, which were either 1 or 2, were not found to be different between the 2 groups via Mann-Whitney U test (P = .358). There was a very weak correlation between SVV and CVP during profound vasodilation such as CVP ≤ 5 mm Hg (R = -0.06; 95% confidence interval, -0.09 to -0.04; P < .001). Additional post hoc analysis suggested that younger age, lower baseline CVP, and longer duration of milrinone infusion might be helpful in providing the best surgical field.
Milrinone-induced vasodilation resulted in favorable surgical environment regardless of guidance methods of low CVP during living donor hepatectomy. However, SVV was not a useful indicator of low CVP because of very weak correlation between SVV and CVP during profound vasodilation. In addition, factors contributing to the best surgical field such as donor age, proactive fasting, and proper dosing of milrinone need to be investigated further, ideally through prospective studies.
我们之前已证明米力农对活体供肝肝切除术有用。然而,中心静脉置管的一种侵入性较小的替代方法以及围手术期有助于良好手术结果的因素仍未确定。本研究评估了每搏量变异度(SVV)引导法在米力农诱导的深度血管扩张期间能否替代中心静脉置管。
我们将42例活体肝供者随机分为两组,分别接受SVV引导或中心静脉压(CVP)引导以获得米力农诱导的低CVP。目标SVV为9%,以此替代CVP 5 mmHg。由2名主治医生采用4分制评估的手术视野等级在CVP引导组和SVV引导组(每组n = 19,每组总评分 = 38)之间进行比较,作为主要结局变量。进行多变量分析以确定与最佳手术视野相关的独立因素,作为事后分析。
通过曼-惠特尼U检验发现,两组的手术视野等级(均为1或2)无差异(P = 0.358)。在深度血管扩张如CVP≤5 mmHg期间,SVV与CVP之间的相关性非常弱(R = -0.06;95%置信区间,-0.09至-0.04;P < 0.001)。额外的事后分析表明,年龄较小、基线CVP较低以及米力农输注持续时间较长可能有助于提供最佳手术视野。
在活体供肝肝切除术期间,无论低CVP的引导方法如何,米力农诱导的血管扩张均产生了良好的手术环境。然而,由于在深度血管扩张期间SVV与CVP之间的相关性非常弱,SVV并非低CVP的有用指标。此外,需要进一步研究有助于获得最佳手术视野的因素,如供者年龄、积极禁食和米力农的适当剂量,理想情况下通过前瞻性研究进行。