Perioperative fluid management: evidence-based consensus recommendations from the international multidisciplinary PeriOperative Quality Initiative

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.038
Marlies Ostermann , Georg Auzinger , Michael Grocott , Victoria Morton-Bailey , Jacob Raphael , Andrew D. Shaw , Alexander Zarbock
{"title":"Perioperative fluid management: evidence-based consensus recommendations from the international multidisciplinary PeriOperative Quality Initiative","authors":"Marlies Ostermann ,&nbsp;Georg Auzinger ,&nbsp;Michael Grocott ,&nbsp;Victoria Morton-Bailey ,&nbsp;Jacob Raphael ,&nbsp;Andrew D. Shaw ,&nbsp;Alexander Zarbock","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Fluid therapy is an integral component of perioperative management. In light of emerging evidence in this area, the Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) convened an international multiprofessional expert meeting to generate evidence-based consensus recommendations for fluid management in patients undergoing surgery. This article provides a summary of the recommendations for perioperative fluid management of surgical patients from the preoperative period until hospital discharge and for all types of elective and emergency surgery, apart from burn injuries and head and neck surgery. Where evidence was lacking, recommendations for future research were generated. Specific recommendations are made for fluid management in elective major noncardiac surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass, thoracic surgery, neurosurgery, minor noncardiac surgery under general anaesthesia, and critical illness. There are ongoing gaps in knowledge resulting in variation in practice and some disagreement with our consensus recommendations. Perioperative fluid management should be individualised, taking into account the type of surgery and important patient factors, including intravascular volume status and acute and chronic comorbidities. Recommendations are made for further research in perioperative fluid management to address important gaps.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"133 6","pages":"Pages 1263-1275"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224005063","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fluid therapy is an integral component of perioperative management. In light of emerging evidence in this area, the Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) convened an international multiprofessional expert meeting to generate evidence-based consensus recommendations for fluid management in patients undergoing surgery. This article provides a summary of the recommendations for perioperative fluid management of surgical patients from the preoperative period until hospital discharge and for all types of elective and emergency surgery, apart from burn injuries and head and neck surgery. Where evidence was lacking, recommendations for future research were generated. Specific recommendations are made for fluid management in elective major noncardiac surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass, thoracic surgery, neurosurgery, minor noncardiac surgery under general anaesthesia, and critical illness. There are ongoing gaps in knowledge resulting in variation in practice and some disagreement with our consensus recommendations. Perioperative fluid management should be individualised, taking into account the type of surgery and important patient factors, including intravascular volume status and acute and chronic comorbidities. Recommendations are made for further research in perioperative fluid management to address important gaps.
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
围手术期液体管理:国际多学科围手术期质量倡议提出的循证共识建议。
液体疗法是围手术期管理不可或缺的组成部分。鉴于该领域新出现的证据,围手术期质量倡议(POQI)召开了一次国际多专业专家会议,就手术患者的液体管理提出了基于证据的共识建议。本文概述了手术患者从术前到出院的围手术期液体管理建议,适用于除烧伤和头颈部手术以外的所有类型的择期手术和急诊手术。在缺乏证据的情况下,提出了未来研究的建议。对择期非心脏大手术、心肺旁路手术、胸外科手术、神经外科手术、全身麻醉下的非心脏小手术以及危重病人的液体管理提出了具体建议。目前的知识空白导致了实践中的差异,并与我们的共识建议存在一些分歧。围术期液体管理应因人而异,考虑手术类型和患者的重要因素,包括血管内容量状态和急慢性合并症。我们建议进一步研究围术期液体管理,以填补重要空白。
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
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
A critical approach to research on perioperative pain management. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the perioperative period: current controversies and concerns. Aperiodic component of the electroencephalogram power spectrum reflects the hypnotic level of anaesthesia. Comparison of different monitors for measurement of nociception during general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority and patient safety: a single-centre mixed-methods study.
×
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