Gopal Janani, Srivastava Shashi, Singh Nidhi, Haldar Rudrashish, Verma Ruchi, Gupta Devendra, Mishra Prabhakar
Department of Anesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Department of Biostatistics & Health Informatics, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Asian J Neurosurg. 2023 Sep 22;18(3):508-515. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1771364. eCollection 2023 Sep.
Appropriate fluid management in neurosurgery is critical due to the risk of secondary brain injury. Determination of volume status is challenging with static variables being unreliable. Goal-directed fluid therapy with dynamic variables allows reliable determination of fluid responsiveness and promises better outcomes. We aimed to compare the intraoperative fluid requirement between conventional central venous pressure (CVP)-guided and pulse pressure variance (PPV)-guided fluid management in supratentorial tumor surgeries. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-center trial was conducted with 72 adults undergoing supratentorial tumor surgery in a supine position. Patients were divided into two groups of 36 patients each receiving CVP- and PPV-guided fluid therapy. The CVP-guided group received boluses to target CVP greater than 8 mm Hg along with hourly replacement of intraoperative losses and maintenance fluids. The PPV-guided group received boluses to target PPV less than 13% in addition to maintenance fluids. Total intraoperative fluids administered and the incidence of hypotension was recorded along with the brain relaxation score. Postoperatively, serum lactate levels, periorbital and conjunctival edema, as well as postoperative nausea and vomiting were assessed. All statistical analyses were performed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version-20 (SPSS-20, IBM, Chicago, Illinois, United States). To compare the means between the two groups (CVP vs. PPV), independent samples -test was used for normal distribution data and Mann-Whitney test for nonnormal distribution data. The chi-square test or Fischer's exact test was used for categorical variables. The CVP group received significantly more intraoperative fluids than the PPV group (4,340 ± 1,010 vs. 3,540 ± 740 mL, < 0.01). Incidence of hypotension was lower in the PPV group (4 [11.1%] vs. 0 [0%], = 0.04). Brain relaxation scores, serum lactate levels, periorbital and conjunctival edema, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were comparable between the groups. The requirement for intraoperative fluids was less in PPV-guided fluid management with better hemodynamic stability, adequate brain conditions, and no compromise of perfusion.
由于存在继发性脑损伤风险,神经外科手术中适当的液体管理至关重要。仅依靠静态变量来确定容量状态具有挑战性,因为这些变量并不可靠。采用动态变量的目标导向液体疗法能够可靠地确定液体反应性,并有望带来更好的治疗效果。我们旨在比较幕上肿瘤手术中,传统中心静脉压(CVP)引导的液体管理与脉压变异度(PPV)引导的液体管理在术中的液体需求量。
这项前瞻性、随机、双盲、单中心试验纳入了72例仰卧位接受幕上肿瘤手术的成年人。患者被分为两组,每组36例,分别接受CVP引导和PPV引导的液体疗法。CVP引导组给予推注液体以使CVP目标值大于8 mmHg,同时每小时补充术中丢失量和维持液量。PPV引导组除维持液量外,给予推注液体以使PPV目标值小于13%。记录术中给予的总液体量、低血压发生率以及脑松弛评分。术后评估血清乳酸水平、眶周和结膜水肿以及术后恶心和呕吐情况。
所有统计分析均使用社会科学统计软件包第20版(SPSS - 20,IBM,美国伊利诺伊州芝加哥)进行。为比较两组(CVP与PPV)的均值,对于正态分布数据使用独立样本t检验,对于非正态分布数据使用曼 - 惠特尼U检验。对于分类变量使用卡方检验或费舍尔精确检验。
CVP组术中接受的液体量显著多于PPV组(4340 ± 1010 vs. 3540 ± 740 mL,P < 0.01)。PPV组低血压发生率较低(4例[11.1%] vs. 0例[0%],P = 0.04)。两组之间脑松弛评分、血清乳酸水平、眶周和结膜水肿以及术后恶心和呕吐发生率相当。
PPV引导的液体管理术中液体需求量更少,血流动力学稳定性更好,脑条件充足,且灌注无受损。