Impact of the FloTrac/VigileoTM Monitoring on Intraoperative Fluid Management and Outcome after Liver Resection

Backgrounds: Perioperative fluid-therapy is a still a debated issue. In hepatic surgery, volume load must be strictly monitored to assure both a safe hemodynamics and low central venous pressure (CVP) to limit the backflow bleeding. Retrospectively, we compared intraoperative fluid management before...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Digestive surgery 2018, Vol.35 (5), p.435-441
Hauptverfasser: Giustiniano, Enrico, Procopio, Fabio, Ruggieri, Nadia, Grimaldi, Stefania, Torzilli, Guido, Raimondi, Ferdinando
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Backgrounds: Perioperative fluid-therapy is a still a debated issue. In hepatic surgery, volume load must be strictly monitored to assure both a safe hemodynamics and low central venous pressure (CVP) to limit the backflow bleeding. Retrospectively, we compared intraoperative fluid management before and after the adoption of a semi-invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Methods: We compared patients submitted to liver resection monitored by FloTrac/Vigileo TM (group A) vs. patients who did not (group B). We searched for differences about hemodynamics, fluid therapy and outcome. Results: Three hundred fifty-five patients underwent hepatic resection due to neoplasm: group A – n = 179 and group B – n = 176. At the end of the resection, patients of group A showed a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) than group B (74 ± 12 vs. 49.4 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.001). Cardiac index and stroke volume variation in group A were within a normal range. Fluid input was higher in group B than in group A (12.0 ± 3.4 vs. 7.6 ± 3.1 mL/kg/h, respectively; p < 0.001) and fluid balance was significantly different: group A –400 ± 1,527 vs. group B 326 ± 1,527 mL (p < 0.001). Group B showed a greater number of cases complicated outcomes (36 vs. 20; p = 0.014). Considering only those subjects who were able to reach their hemodynamic targets (MAP ≥65 mm Hg and CVP ≤7 mm Hg), we found similar data. Conclusions: Patients who received a monitored fluid therapy experienced a safer outcome.
ISSN:0253-4886
1421-9883
DOI:10.1159/000481406