Zhang Ying, Chen Hong, Yu Wu, Jiang Haiyan, Zhan Chengye
Operating Room, Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China.
Department of Intensive Care Unit, Tongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China.
Am J Transl Res. 2021 Jul 15;13(7):7848-7856. eCollection 2021.
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of central venous pressure (CVP) versus stroke volume variation (SVV) to guide fluid management in renal transplantation.
The clinical data of 97 patients who underwent allogeneic renal transplantation in our hospital were collected retrospectively. Based on the method of intraoperative infusion monitoring, they were divided into group A, which received guided fluid management by monitoring CVP, and group B which received guided fluid management by monitoring SVV. The changes in intraoperative hemodynamic indicators, urine volume, blood loss, and total blood transfusion volume, total fluid volume, urine output at different time points after surgery, renal function indicators, blood purification rate, length of stay, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.
CVP values at T1 (5 min before surgery), T2 (external iliac vein obstruction), T3 (establishment of vessel access), and T4 (end of surgery) in group B were higher than those in group A (<0.05). The two groups showed no significant difference in intraoperative urine volume, blood loss and length of hospital stay (>0.05). The total fluid volume and total infusion volume at 3 days after surgery in group B were less than those in group A (<0.05). The urine volume did not differ at time points 0 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h postoperatively (>0.05). Serum creatinine levels in group B at 0 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h postoperatively were lower than those in group A (<0.05). After renal transplantation, the rate of blood purification was 4.08% in group B, which was lower than 25.00% in group A (<0.05). The rate of respiratory failure in group B was 4.08%, which was not significantly different from 6.25% in group A (>0.05).
Compared with CVP, fluid management guided by monitoring SVV during renal transplantation can reduce intraoperative fluid volume, optimize the renal perfusion, reduce postoperative blood purification, and facilitate postoperative recovery.
本研究旨在比较中心静脉压(CVP)与每搏量变异度(SVV)指导肾移植术中液体管理的有效性。
回顾性收集我院97例行同种异体肾移植患者的临床资料。根据术中输液监测方法,将其分为A组,通过监测CVP进行液体管理指导;B组,通过监测SVV进行液体管理指导。比较两组术中血流动力学指标、尿量、失血量、总输血量、总液体量、术后不同时间点尿量、肾功能指标、血液净化率、住院时间及术后并发症。
B组在T1(手术前5分钟)、T2(髂外静脉阻断)、T3(血管通路建立)和T4(手术结束)时的CVP值高于A组(<0.05)。两组术中尿量、失血量和住院时间差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。B组术后3天的总液体量和总输液量少于A组(<0.05)。术后0小时、24小时、48小时和72小时的尿量差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。B组术后0小时、24小时、48小时和72小时的血清肌酐水平低于A组(<0.05)。肾移植后,B组血液净化率为4.08%,低于A组的25.00%(<0.05)。B组呼吸衰竭发生率为4.08%,与A组的6.25%差异无统计学意义(>0.05)。
与CVP相比,肾移植术中通过监测SVV指导液体管理可减少术中液体量,优化肾脏灌注,减少术后血液净化,促进术后恢复。