Fluid therapy and pulmonary complications in abdominal surgeries: randomized controlled trial

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1016/j.bjane.2024.844500
Gabriel Isaac Pereira de Castro , Renata Sayuri Ansai Pereira de Castro , Rodrigo Moreira e Lima , Bruna Nogueira dos Santos , Lais Helena Navarro e Lima
{"title":"Fluid therapy and pulmonary complications in abdominal surgeries: randomized controlled trial","authors":"Gabriel Isaac Pereira de Castro ,&nbsp;Renata Sayuri Ansai Pereira de Castro ,&nbsp;Rodrigo Moreira e Lima ,&nbsp;Bruna Nogueira dos Santos ,&nbsp;Lais Helena Navarro e Lima","doi":"10.1016/j.bjane.2024.844500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There is no consensus on the most effective strategy for Postoperative Pulmonary Complication (PPC) reduction. This study hypothesized that a Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy (GDFT) protocol of infusion of predetermined boluses reduces the occurrence of PPC in patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgeries when compared with Standard of Care (SOC) strategy.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Randomized, prospective, controlled study, conducted from May 2012 to December 2014, with ASA I, II or III patients undergoing open abdominal surgeries, lasting at least 120 min, under general anesthesia, randomized into the SOC and the GDFT group. In the SOC, fluid administration was according to the anesthesiologist's discretion. In the GDFT, the intervention protocol, based on bolus infusion according to blood pressure and delta pulse pressure, was applied. Patients were postoperatively evaluated by an anesthesiologist blinded to the group allocation regarding PPC incidence, mortality, and Length of Hospital Stay (LOHS).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Forty-two patients in the SOC group and 43 in the GDFT group. Nineteen patients (45%) in the SOC and 6 in the GDFT (14%) had at least one PPC (<em>p</em> = 0.003). There was no difference in mortality or LOHS between the groups. Among the patients with PPC, four died (25%), compared to two deaths in patients without PPC (3%) (<em>p</em> = 0.001). The LOHS had a median of 14.5 days in the group with PPC and 9 days in the group without PPC (<em>p</em> = 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The GDFT protocol resulted in a lower rate of PPC; however, the LOHS and mortality did not reduce.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":32356,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104001424000228/pdfft?md5=c8ad0071a7100e86aca972abfac00f6a&pid=1-s2.0-S0104001424000228-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0104001424000228","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is no consensus on the most effective strategy for Postoperative Pulmonary Complication (PPC) reduction. This study hypothesized that a Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy (GDFT) protocol of infusion of predetermined boluses reduces the occurrence of PPC in patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgeries when compared with Standard of Care (SOC) strategy.

Methods

Randomized, prospective, controlled study, conducted from May 2012 to December 2014, with ASA I, II or III patients undergoing open abdominal surgeries, lasting at least 120 min, under general anesthesia, randomized into the SOC and the GDFT group. In the SOC, fluid administration was according to the anesthesiologist's discretion. In the GDFT, the intervention protocol, based on bolus infusion according to blood pressure and delta pulse pressure, was applied. Patients were postoperatively evaluated by an anesthesiologist blinded to the group allocation regarding PPC incidence, mortality, and Length of Hospital Stay (LOHS).

Results

Forty-two patients in the SOC group and 43 in the GDFT group. Nineteen patients (45%) in the SOC and 6 in the GDFT (14%) had at least one PPC (p = 0.003). There was no difference in mortality or LOHS between the groups. Among the patients with PPC, four died (25%), compared to two deaths in patients without PPC (3%) (p = 0.001). The LOHS had a median of 14.5 days in the group with PPC and 9 days in the group without PPC (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

The GDFT protocol resulted in a lower rate of PPC; however, the LOHS and mortality did not reduce.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹部手术中的液体疗法和肺部并发症:随机对照试验。
背景:关于减少术后肺部并发症(PPC)的最有效策略,目前尚未达成共识。本研究假设,与标准护理(SOC)策略相比,输注预定剂量的目标导向液体疗法(GDFT)方案可减少择期开腹手术患者肺部并发症的发生:2012年5月至2014年12月进行了一项随机、前瞻性对照研究,研究对象为ASA I、II或III级患者,他们在全身麻醉下接受了至少120分钟的开腹手术,随机分为SOC组和GDFT组。在 SOC 组中,输液由麻醉师决定。在 GDFT 组中,根据血压和δ脉压进行栓剂输注。术后由一名麻醉师对患者进行评估,评估内容包括 PPC 发生率、死亡率和住院时间(LOHS):SOC组有42名患者,GDFT组有43名患者。SOC组19名患者(45%)和GDFT组6名患者(14%)至少有一次PPC(P = 0.003)。两组之间的死亡率或 LOHS 没有差异。在 PPC 患者中,有 4 人死亡(25%),而无 PPC 患者只有 2 人死亡(3%)(P = 0.001)。PPC组的LOHS中位数为14.5天,无PPC组为9天(P = 0.001):结论:GDFT方案降低了PPC发生率,但LOHS和死亡率并未降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
68 days
期刊最新文献
Assessment of superior vena cava diameter and collapsibility index in liver transplantation: a prospective observational study The debate on antifibrinolytics in liver transplantation: always, never, or sometimes? Comparison of propofol-ketamine and propofol-fentanyl combinations for sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized clinical trial Intraoperative hypotension and postoperative delirium in elderly male patients undergoing laryngectomy: a single-center retrospective cohort study The efficacy of buprenorphine compared with dexmedetomidine in spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1