The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Application of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection. The P...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gland surgery 2020-04, Vol.9 (2), p.311-320
Hauptverfasser: Wang, Feiran, Sun, Dongwei, Zhang, Nannan, Chen, Zhong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 320
container_issue 2
container_start_page 311
container_title Gland surgery
container_volume 9
creator Wang, Feiran
Sun, Dongwei
Zhang, Nannan
Chen, Zhong
description Application of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection. The PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. Moreover, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the efficacy and safety of LCVP standard CVP for liver resection. Outcomes included operation time, blood loss, blood infusion, fluid infusion, urinary volume, postoperative complication rates, and hospital stay. In total, 10 studies, involving 324 patients undergoing liver resection with controlled LCVP, were identified. Meta-analysis displayed that blood loss in the LCVP group was dramatically less than that in the control group (standard CVP group, mean difference (MD): -581.68; 95% CI: -886.32 to -277.05; P=0.0002). Moreover, blood transfusion in the LCVP group was also markedly less than that in the control group (MD: -179.16; 95% CI: -282.00 to -76.33; P=0.0006). However, there was no difference between LCVP group and control group in operation time (MD: -16.24; 95% CI: -39.56 to 7.09; P=0.17), fluid infusion (MD: -287.89; 95% CI: -1,054.47 to 478.69; P=0.46), urinary volume (MD: -26.88; 95% CI: -87.14 to 33.37; P=0.38), ALT (MD: -58.66; 95% CI: -153.81 to 36.50; P=0.23), TBIL (MD: -0.32; 95% CI: -3.93 to 3.28; P=0.86), BUN (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.47; P=0.67), CR (MD: 1.87; 95% CI: -4.90 to 8.63; P=0.59), postoperative complication rates (MD: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.90; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -0.61; 95% CI: -1.68 to 0.46; P=0.26). Compared with the control, controlled LCVP showed comparable efficacy and safety for the treatment during liver resection.
doi_str_mv 10.21037/gs.2020.03.07
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7225502</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2404380542</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-27caa6c4fee9018de62e00fbeff876afaae1653c812d1a5366de08e4127c3743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUU1v1DAQtRCIVqVXjshHLknHdmKnHJBQVT6kSlz2wM2aOuOtkRMvdnarSP3xmHap4OTxzHtvPh5jbwW0UoAyF9vSSpDQgmrBvGCnUkrTDL3pXx5jPXQ_Tth5KT8BQCjZaS1fs5MaVF7fn7KHzR1x8j44dCvHeeQFPS0rT567NC85xUgjj-meO6pfjPxAc9oXvstUyj4T9ynzGA6Uec2QW0KaP3DkZS0LTbgEV_OHQPeP6hMt2OCMcS2hvGGvPMZC58f3jG0-X2-uvjY33798u_p00zh1CUsjjUPUrvNElyCGkbQkAH9bxx6MRo9IQvfKDUKOAnul9UgwUCcqUZlOnbGPT7K7_e1E43EPu8thwrzahMH-X5nDnd2mgzWy3ghkFXh_FMjp157KYqdQHMWIM9VTWNlBpwbouz_Q9gnqciolk39uI8A-mma3lVBNs6AsmEp49-9wz_C_FqnfafaWbA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2404380542</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Wang, Feiran ; Sun, Dongwei ; Zhang, Nannan ; Chen, Zhong</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Feiran ; Sun, Dongwei ; Zhang, Nannan ; Chen, Zhong</creatorcontrib><description>Application of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection. The PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. Moreover, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the efficacy and safety of LCVP standard CVP for liver resection. Outcomes included operation time, blood loss, blood infusion, fluid infusion, urinary volume, postoperative complication rates, and hospital stay. In total, 10 studies, involving 324 patients undergoing liver resection with controlled LCVP, were identified. Meta-analysis displayed that blood loss in the LCVP group was dramatically less than that in the control group (standard CVP group, mean difference (MD): -581.68; 95% CI: -886.32 to -277.05; P=0.0002). Moreover, blood transfusion in the LCVP group was also markedly less than that in the control group (MD: -179.16; 95% CI: -282.00 to -76.33; P=0.0006). However, there was no difference between LCVP group and control group in operation time (MD: -16.24; 95% CI: -39.56 to 7.09; P=0.17), fluid infusion (MD: -287.89; 95% CI: -1,054.47 to 478.69; P=0.46), urinary volume (MD: -26.88; 95% CI: -87.14 to 33.37; P=0.38), ALT (MD: -58.66; 95% CI: -153.81 to 36.50; P=0.23), TBIL (MD: -0.32; 95% CI: -3.93 to 3.28; P=0.86), BUN (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.47; P=0.67), CR (MD: 1.87; 95% CI: -4.90 to 8.63; P=0.59), postoperative complication rates (MD: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.90; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -0.61; 95% CI: -1.68 to 0.46; P=0.26). Compared with the control, controlled LCVP showed comparable efficacy and safety for the treatment during liver resection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2227-684X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2227-8575</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.21037/gs.2020.03.07</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32420255</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>China (Republic : 1949- ): AME Publishing Company</publisher><subject>Original</subject><ispartof>Gland surgery, 2020-04, Vol.9 (2), p.311-320</ispartof><rights>2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved. 2020 Gland Surgery.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-27caa6c4fee9018de62e00fbeff876afaae1653c812d1a5366de08e4127c3743</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225502/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225502/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32420255$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Feiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Dongwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Nannan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Zhong</creatorcontrib><title>The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Gland surgery</title><addtitle>Gland Surg</addtitle><description>Application of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection. The PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. Moreover, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the efficacy and safety of LCVP standard CVP for liver resection. Outcomes included operation time, blood loss, blood infusion, fluid infusion, urinary volume, postoperative complication rates, and hospital stay. In total, 10 studies, involving 324 patients undergoing liver resection with controlled LCVP, were identified. Meta-analysis displayed that blood loss in the LCVP group was dramatically less than that in the control group (standard CVP group, mean difference (MD): -581.68; 95% CI: -886.32 to -277.05; P=0.0002). Moreover, blood transfusion in the LCVP group was also markedly less than that in the control group (MD: -179.16; 95% CI: -282.00 to -76.33; P=0.0006). However, there was no difference between LCVP group and control group in operation time (MD: -16.24; 95% CI: -39.56 to 7.09; P=0.17), fluid infusion (MD: -287.89; 95% CI: -1,054.47 to 478.69; P=0.46), urinary volume (MD: -26.88; 95% CI: -87.14 to 33.37; P=0.38), ALT (MD: -58.66; 95% CI: -153.81 to 36.50; P=0.23), TBIL (MD: -0.32; 95% CI: -3.93 to 3.28; P=0.86), BUN (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.47; P=0.67), CR (MD: 1.87; 95% CI: -4.90 to 8.63; P=0.59), postoperative complication rates (MD: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.90; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -0.61; 95% CI: -1.68 to 0.46; P=0.26). Compared with the control, controlled LCVP showed comparable efficacy and safety for the treatment during liver resection.</description><subject>Original</subject><issn>2227-684X</issn><issn>2227-8575</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVUU1v1DAQtRCIVqVXjshHLknHdmKnHJBQVT6kSlz2wM2aOuOtkRMvdnarSP3xmHap4OTxzHtvPh5jbwW0UoAyF9vSSpDQgmrBvGCnUkrTDL3pXx5jPXQ_Tth5KT8BQCjZaS1fs5MaVF7fn7KHzR1x8j44dCvHeeQFPS0rT567NC85xUgjj-meO6pfjPxAc9oXvstUyj4T9ynzGA6Uec2QW0KaP3DkZS0LTbgEV_OHQPeP6hMt2OCMcS2hvGGvPMZC58f3jG0-X2-uvjY33798u_p00zh1CUsjjUPUrvNElyCGkbQkAH9bxx6MRo9IQvfKDUKOAnul9UgwUCcqUZlOnbGPT7K7_e1E43EPu8thwrzahMH-X5nDnd2mgzWy3ghkFXh_FMjp157KYqdQHMWIM9VTWNlBpwbouz_Q9gnqciolk39uI8A-mma3lVBNs6AsmEp49-9wz_C_FqnfafaWbA</recordid><startdate>202004</startdate><enddate>202004</enddate><creator>Wang, Feiran</creator><creator>Sun, Dongwei</creator><creator>Zhang, Nannan</creator><creator>Chen, Zhong</creator><general>AME Publishing Company</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202004</creationdate><title>The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Wang, Feiran ; Sun, Dongwei ; Zhang, Nannan ; Chen, Zhong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-27caa6c4fee9018de62e00fbeff876afaae1653c812d1a5366de08e4127c3743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Original</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Feiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Dongwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Nannan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Zhong</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Gland surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Feiran</au><au>Sun, Dongwei</au><au>Zhang, Nannan</au><au>Chen, Zhong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Gland surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Gland Surg</addtitle><date>2020-04</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>311</spage><epage>320</epage><pages>311-320</pages><issn>2227-684X</issn><eissn>2227-8575</eissn><abstract>Application of controlled low central venous pressure (LCVP) in liver resection growing in popularity, but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Our objectives were to assess and compare the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of controlled LCVP in patients undergoing liver resection. The PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. Moreover, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.3 software to compare the efficacy and safety of LCVP standard CVP for liver resection. Outcomes included operation time, blood loss, blood infusion, fluid infusion, urinary volume, postoperative complication rates, and hospital stay. In total, 10 studies, involving 324 patients undergoing liver resection with controlled LCVP, were identified. Meta-analysis displayed that blood loss in the LCVP group was dramatically less than that in the control group (standard CVP group, mean difference (MD): -581.68; 95% CI: -886.32 to -277.05; P=0.0002). Moreover, blood transfusion in the LCVP group was also markedly less than that in the control group (MD: -179.16; 95% CI: -282.00 to -76.33; P=0.0006). However, there was no difference between LCVP group and control group in operation time (MD: -16.24; 95% CI: -39.56 to 7.09; P=0.17), fluid infusion (MD: -287.89; 95% CI: -1,054.47 to 478.69; P=0.46), urinary volume (MD: -26.88; 95% CI: -87.14 to 33.37; P=0.38), ALT (MD: -58.66; 95% CI: -153.81 to 36.50; P=0.23), TBIL (MD: -0.32; 95% CI: -3.93 to 3.28; P=0.86), BUN (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.73 to 0.47; P=0.67), CR (MD: 1.87; 95% CI: -4.90 to 8.63; P=0.59), postoperative complication rates (MD: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.90; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -0.61; 95% CI: -1.68 to 0.46; P=0.26). Compared with the control, controlled LCVP showed comparable efficacy and safety for the treatment during liver resection.</abstract><cop>China (Republic : 1949- )</cop><pub>AME Publishing Company</pub><pmid>32420255</pmid><doi>10.21037/gs.2020.03.07</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2227-684X
ispartof Gland surgery, 2020-04, Vol.9 (2), p.311-320
issn 2227-684X
2227-8575
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7225502
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Original
title The efficacy and safety of controlled low central venous pressure for liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T04%3A56%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20efficacy%20and%20safety%20of%20controlled%20low%20central%20venous%20pressure%20for%20liver%20resection:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Gland%20surgery&rft.au=Wang,%20Feiran&rft.date=2020-04&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=311&rft.epage=320&rft.pages=311-320&rft.issn=2227-684X&rft.eissn=2227-8575&rft_id=info:doi/10.21037/gs.2020.03.07&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2404380542%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2404380542&rft_id=info:pmid/32420255&rfr_iscdi=true