Department of Anesthesia, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 Jul 31;19(1):135. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0803-x.
Right hepatectomy is a complex procedure that carries inherent risks of perioperative morbidity. To evaluate outcome differences between a low central venous pressure fluid intervention strategy and a goal directed fluid therapy (GDFT) cardiac output algorithm we performed a retrospective observational study. We hypothesized that a GDFT protocol would result in less intraoperative fluid administration, reduced complications and a shorter length of hospital stay.
Patients undergoing hepatectomy using an established enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme between 2010 and 2017 were extracted from a prospectively managed electronic hospital database. Inclusion criteria included adult patients, undergoing open right (segments V-VIII) or extended right (segments IV-VIII) hepatectomy.
amount of intraoperative fluid administration used between the two groups.
type and amount of vasoactive medications used, the development of predefined postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality. Complications were defined by the European Perioperative Clinical Outcome definitions and graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification. The association between GDFT and the amount of fluid and vasoactive medication used was investigated using logistic and linear regression models.
Fifty-eight consecutive patients were identified. 26 patients received GDFT and 32 received Usual care. There were no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics. Less intraoperative fluid was used in the GDFT group: median (IQR) 2000 ml (1175 to 2700) vs. 2750 ml (2000 to 4000) in the Usual care group; p = 0.03. There were no significant differences in the use of vasoactive medications. Postoperative complications were similar: 9 patients (35%) in the GDFT group vs. 18 patients (56%) in the Usual care group; p = 0.10, OR: 0.41; (95%CI: 0.14 to 1.20). Median (IQR) length of stay for patients in the GDFT group was 7 days (6:8) vs. 9 days (7:13) in the Usual care group; incident rate ratio 0.72 (95%CI: 0.56 to 0.93); p = 0.012. There was no difference in perioperative mortality.
In patients undergoing open right hepatectomy with an established ERAS programme, use of GDFT was associated with less intraoperative fluid administration and reduced hospital length of stay when compared to Usual care. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or mortality.
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: no 12619000558123 on 10/4/19.
右半肝切除术是一种复杂的手术,具有围手术期发病率高的固有风险。为了评估低中心静脉压液体干预策略和目标导向液体治疗(GDFT)心输出量算法之间的结果差异,我们进行了一项回顾性观察性研究。我们假设 GDFT 方案会导致术中液体用量减少、并发症减少和住院时间缩短。
从一个前瞻性管理的电子医院数据库中提取 2010 年至 2017 年间接受既定术后加速康复(ERAS)方案的肝切除术患者。纳入标准包括接受开腹右(V-VIII 段)或扩大右(IV-VIII 段)肝切除术的成年患者。
两组术中液体使用量。
使用的血管活性药物的类型和数量、预定术后并发症的发展、住院时间和 30 天死亡率。并发症由欧洲围手术期临床结局定义定义,并根据 Clavien-Dindo 分类进行分级。使用逻辑回归和线性回归模型研究 GDFT 与液体和血管活性药物使用量之间的关系。
确定了 58 例连续患者。26 例患者接受 GDFT,32 例患者接受常规护理。基线患者特征无显著差异。GDFT 组术中液体使用量较少:中位数(IQR)2000ml(1175 至 2700)比常规护理组 2750ml(2000 至 4000);p=0.03。血管活性药物的使用无显著差异。术后并发症相似:GDFT 组 9 例(35%),常规护理组 18 例(56%);p=0.10,OR:0.41;(95%CI:0.14 至 1.20)。GDFT 组患者的中位(IQR)住院时间为 7 天(6:8),常规护理组为 9 天(7:13);发生率比 0.72(95%CI:0.56 至 0.93);p=0.012。围手术期死亡率无差异。
在接受既定 ERAS 方案的开腹右肝切除术患者中,与常规护理相比,使用 GDFT 与术中液体用量减少和住院时间缩短相关。术后并发症或死亡率无显著差异。
澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心:无 12619000558123 于 2019 年 4 月 10 日。