Sean Coeckelenbergh, Joseph Rinehart, Olivier Desebbe, Nicolas Rogoz, Amira Dagachi Mastouri, Bryan Maghen, Maxime Cannesson, Jean-Louis Vincent, Jacques Duranteau, Alexandre Joosten
{"title":"高危手术中决策支持引导的液体挑战和脑卒中容量反应:一项随机对照试验的事后分析","authors":"Sean Coeckelenbergh, Joseph Rinehart, Olivier Desebbe, Nicolas Rogoz, Amira Dagachi Mastouri, Bryan Maghen, Maxime Cannesson, Jean-Louis Vincent, Jacques Duranteau, Alexandre Joosten","doi":"10.1007/s10877-025-01261-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intravenous fluid is administered during high-risk surgery to optimize stroke volume (SV). To assess ongoing need for fluids, the hemodynamic response to a fluid bolus is evaluated using a fluid challenge technique. The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management (AFM) system is a decision support tool designed to ease the application of fluid challenges and thus improve fluid administration during high-risk surgery. In this post hoc analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we compared the rates of fluid responsiveness (defined as an increase in SV of ≥ 10%) after AFM-guided or clinician-initiated (control) fluid challenges. Patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to AFM-guided or clinician-initiated groups for fluid challenges titration, which consisted of 250-mL boluses of crystalloid or albumin given over 5 min. The fluid responsiveness rates and the mean SV increase in the two groups were compared. The original study included 86 patients (44 in the AFM group and 42 in the clinician-initiated group) and this sub-study analysed 85 patients with a total of 448 fluid challenges. The median rate of fluid responsiveness was greater in the AFM than in the control group (50 [44-71] % vs 33 [20-40] %, p<0.001). The mean increase in SV after fluid challenge was also higher in the AFM than in the control group (12 [9-16] % vs 6 [3-10] %, p<0.001). AFM-initiated fluid challenges were more often associated with the desired increase in SV than were clinician-initiated fluid challenges, and absolute SV increases were greater.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision support guided fluid challenges and stroke volume response during high-risk surgery: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Sean Coeckelenbergh, Joseph Rinehart, Olivier Desebbe, Nicolas Rogoz, Amira Dagachi Mastouri, Bryan Maghen, Maxime Cannesson, Jean-Louis Vincent, Jacques Duranteau, Alexandre Joosten\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10877-025-01261-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intravenous fluid is administered during high-risk surgery to optimize stroke volume (SV). To assess ongoing need for fluids, the hemodynamic response to a fluid bolus is evaluated using a fluid challenge technique. The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management (AFM) system is a decision support tool designed to ease the application of fluid challenges and thus improve fluid administration during high-risk surgery. In this post hoc analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we compared the rates of fluid responsiveness (defined as an increase in SV of ≥ 10%) after AFM-guided or clinician-initiated (control) fluid challenges. Patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to AFM-guided or clinician-initiated groups for fluid challenges titration, which consisted of 250-mL boluses of crystalloid or albumin given over 5 min. The fluid responsiveness rates and the mean SV increase in the two groups were compared. The original study included 86 patients (44 in the AFM group and 42 in the clinician-initiated group) and this sub-study analysed 85 patients with a total of 448 fluid challenges. The median rate of fluid responsiveness was greater in the AFM than in the control group (50 [44-71] % vs 33 [20-40] %, p<0.001). The mean increase in SV after fluid challenge was also higher in the AFM than in the control group (12 [9-16] % vs 6 [3-10] %, p<0.001). AFM-initiated fluid challenges were more often associated with the desired increase in SV than were clinician-initiated fluid challenges, and absolute SV increases were greater.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01261-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01261-7","RegionNum":3,"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
摘要
在高危手术期间静脉输液以优化脑卒中容量(SV)。为了评估对液体的持续需求,使用液体挑战技术评估对液体丸的血流动力学反应。Acumen辅助流体管理(AFM)系统是一种决策支持工具,旨在缓解流体应用的挑战,从而改善高风险手术期间的流体管理。在这项随机对照试验的数据分析中,我们比较了afm引导或临床发起的(对照)液体刺激后的液体反应率(定义为SV增加≥10%)。接受高危腹部手术的患者被随机分配到afm引导组或临床启动组进行液体挑战滴定,其中包括250 ml晶体或白蛋白,给予5分钟。比较两组的液体反应率和平均SV增加。最初的研究包括86例患者(AFM组44例,临床启动组42例),该亚研究分析了85例患者共448例体液挑战。AFM患者的中位液体反应率高于对照组(50 [44-71]% vs 33 [20-40] %, p
Decision support guided fluid challenges and stroke volume response during high-risk surgery: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
Intravenous fluid is administered during high-risk surgery to optimize stroke volume (SV). To assess ongoing need for fluids, the hemodynamic response to a fluid bolus is evaluated using a fluid challenge technique. The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management (AFM) system is a decision support tool designed to ease the application of fluid challenges and thus improve fluid administration during high-risk surgery. In this post hoc analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we compared the rates of fluid responsiveness (defined as an increase in SV of ≥ 10%) after AFM-guided or clinician-initiated (control) fluid challenges. Patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to AFM-guided or clinician-initiated groups for fluid challenges titration, which consisted of 250-mL boluses of crystalloid or albumin given over 5 min. The fluid responsiveness rates and the mean SV increase in the two groups were compared. The original study included 86 patients (44 in the AFM group and 42 in the clinician-initiated group) and this sub-study analysed 85 patients with a total of 448 fluid challenges. The median rate of fluid responsiveness was greater in the AFM than in the control group (50 [44-71] % vs 33 [20-40] %, p<0.001). The mean increase in SV after fluid challenge was also higher in the AFM than in the control group (12 [9-16] % vs 6 [3-10] %, p<0.001). AFM-initiated fluid challenges were more often associated with the desired increase in SV than were clinician-initiated fluid challenges, and absolute SV increases were greater.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.