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

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Pub Date : 2025-01-18 DOI:10.1007/s10877-025-01261-7
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
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Comment on "Effect of postoperative peripheral nerve blocks on the analgesia nociception index under propofol anesthesia: an observational study." Characterizing drivers of change in intraoperative cerebral saturation using supervised machine learning. Personalized intraoperative arterial pressure management and mitochondrial oxygen tension in patients having major non-cardiac surgery: a pilot substudy of the IMPROVE trial. Virtual reality simulations to alleviate fear and anxiety in children awaiting MRI: a small-scale randomized controlled trial. Is noninvasive hemoglobin measurement suitable for children undergoing preoperative anesthesia consultation?
×
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