Browsing by Subject "Fluid Therapy"
Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Assisted Fluid Management Software Guidance for Intraoperative Fluid Administration.(Anesthesiology, 2021-08) Maheshwari, Kamal; Malhotra, Gaurav; Bao, Xiaodong; Lahsaei, Peiman; Hand, William R; Fleming, Neal W; Ramsingh, Davinder; Treggiari, Miriam M; Sessler, Daniel I; Miller, Timothy E; Assisted Fluid Management Study TeamBackground
Excessive or inadequate fluid administration causes complications, but despite this, fluid administration during noncardiac surgery is highly variable. Goal-directed management helps optimize the amount and timing of fluid administration; however, implementation is difficult because algorithms are complex. The authors therefore tested the performance of the Acumen Assisted Fluid Management software (Edwards Lifesciences, USA), which is designed to guide optimal intravenous fluid administration during surgery.Methods
In this multicenter, prospective, single-arm cohort evaluation, the authors enrolled 330 adults scheduled for moderate- to high-risk noncardiac surgery that required arterial catheter insertion and mechanical ventilation. Clinicians chose a fluid strategy based on a desired 10%, 15%, or 20% increase in stroke volume (SV) in response to a fluid bolus. Dedicated fluid management software prompted "test" or "recommended" boluses, and clinicians were free to initiate a "user" bolus of 100 to 500 ml of crystalloid or colloid. Clinicians were free to accept or decline the software prompts. The authors primarily compared the fraction of software-recommended boluses that produced suitable increases in SV to a 30% reference rate. On an exploratory basis, we compared responses to software-recommended and clinician-initiated boluses.Results
Four hundred twenty-four of 479 (89%) software-recommended fluid boluses and 508 of 592 (86%) clinician-initiated fluid boluses were analyzed per protocol. Of those, 66% (95% CI, 62 to 70%) of delivered fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired increases in SV, compared with the 30% reference rate, whereas only 41% (95% CI, 38 to 44%) of clinician-initiated boluses did (P < 0.0001). The mean ± SD increase in SV after boluses recommended by the software was 14.2 ± 13.9% versus 8.3 ± 12.1% (P < 0.0001) for those initiated by clinicians.Conclusions
Fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired SV increases more often, and with greater absolute SV increase, than clinician-initiated boluses. Automated assessment of fluid responsiveness may help clinicians optimize intraoperative fluid management during noncardiac surgery.Editor’s perspective
Item Open Access Association between Initial Fluid Choice and Subsequent In-hospital Mortality during the Resuscitation of Adults with Septic Shock.(Anesthesiology, 2015-12) Raghunathan, Karthik; Bonavia, Anthony; Nathanson, Brian H; Beadles, Christopher A; Shaw, Andrew D; Brookhart, M Alan; Miller, Timothy E; Lindenauer, Peter KBACKGROUND: Currently, guidelines recommend initial resuscitation with intravenous (IV) crystalloids during severe sepsis/septic shock. Albumin is suggested as an alternative. However, fluid mixtures are often used in practice, and it is unclear whether the specific mixture of IV fluids used impacts outcomes. The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the specific mixture of IV fluids used during initial resuscitation, in severe sepsis, is associated with important in-hospital outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study includes patients with severe sepsis who were resuscitated with at least 2 l of crystalloids and vasopressors by hospital day 2, patients who had not undergone any major surgical procedures, and patients who had a hospital length of stay (LOS) of at least 2 days. Inverse probability weighting, propensity score matching, and hierarchical regression methods were used for risk adjustment. Patients were grouped into four exposure categories: recipients of isotonic saline alone ("Sal" exclusively), saline in combination with balanced crystalloids ("Sal + Bal"), saline in combination with colloids ("Sal + Col"), or saline in combination with balanced crystalloids and colloids ("Sal + Bal + Col"). In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome, and hospital LOS and costs per day (among survivors) were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In risk-adjusted Inverse Probability Weighting analyses including 60,734 adults admitted to 360 intensive care units across the United States between January 2006 and December 2010, in-hospital mortality was intermediate in the Sal group (20.2%), lower in the Sal + Bal group (17.7%, P < 0.001), higher in the Sal + Col group (24.2%, P < 0.001), and similar in the Sal + Bal + Col group (19.2%, P = 0.401). In pairwise propensity score-matched comparisons, the administration of balanced crystalloids by hospital day 2 was consistently associated with lower mortality, whether colloids were used (relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.92) or not (relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89). The association between colloid use and in-hospital mortality was inconsistent, and survival was not uniformly affected, whereas LOS and costs per day were uniformly increased. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: During the initial resuscitation of adults with severe sepsis/septic shock, the types of IV fluids used may impact in-hospital mortality. When compared with the administration of isotonic saline exclusively during resuscitation, the coadministration of balanced crystalloids is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and no difference in LOS or costs per day. When colloids are coadministered, LOS and costs per day are increased without improved survival. A large randomized controlled trial evaluating crystalloid choice is warranted. Meanwhile, the use of balanced crystalloids seems reasonable. (Anesthesiology 2015; 123:1385-93).Item Open Access Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.(The New England journal of medicine, 2017-06) PRISM Investigators; Rowan, Kathryn M; Angus, Derek C; Bailey, Michael; Barnato, Amber E; Bellomo, Rinaldo; Canter, Ruth R; Coats, Timothy J; Delaney, Anthony; Gimbel, Elizabeth; Grieve, Richard D; Harrison, David A; Higgins, Alisa M; Howe, Belinda; Huang, David T; Kellum, John A; Mouncey, Paul R; Music, Edvin; Peake, Sandra L; Pike, Francis; Reade, Michael C; Sadique, M Zia; Singer, Mervyn; Yealy, Donald MBACKGROUND:After a single-center trial and observational studies suggesting that early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduced mortality from septic shock, three multicenter trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe) showed no benefit. This meta-analysis of individual patient data from the three recent trials was designed prospectively to improve statistical power and explore heterogeneity of treatment effect of EGDT. METHODS:We harmonized entry criteria, intervention protocols, outcomes, resource-use measures, and data collection across the trials and specified all analyses before unblinding. After completion of the trials, we pooled data, excluding the protocol-based standard-therapy group from the ProCESS trial, and resolved residual differences. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1-year survival, organ support, and hospitalization costs. We tested for treatment-by-subgroup interactions for 16 patient characteristics and 6 care-delivery characteristics. RESULTS:We studied 3723 patients at 138 hospitals in seven countries. Mortality at 90 days was similar for EGDT (462 of 1852 patients [24.9%]) and usual care (475 of 1871 patients [25.4%]); the adjusted odds ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14; P=0.68). EGDT was associated with greater mean (±SD) use of intensive care (5.3±7.1 vs. 4.9±7.0 days, P=0.04) and cardiovascular support (1.9±3.7 vs. 1.6±2.9 days, P=0.01) than was usual care; other outcomes did not differ significantly, although average costs were higher with EGDT. Subgroup analyses showed no benefit from EGDT for patients with worse shock (higher serum lactate level, combined hypotension and hyperlactatemia, or higher predicted risk of death) or for hospitals with a lower propensity to use vasopressors or fluids during usual resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS:In this meta-analysis of individual patient data, EGDT did not result in better outcomes than usual care and was associated with higher hospitalization costs across a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and others; PRISM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030158 .).Item Open Access Fluid management and goal-directed therapy as an adjunct to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)(Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 2016-01-01) Miller, Timothy Ellis; Roche, Anthony Michael; Mythen, Michael GerardOptimal perioperative fluid management is an important component of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways. Fluid management within ERAS should be viewed as a continuum through the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases. Each phase is important for improving patient outcomes, and suboptimal care in one phase can undermine best practice within the rest of the ERAS pathway. The goal of preoperative fluid management is for the patient to arrive in the operating room in a hydrated and euvolemic state. To achieve this, prolonged fasting is not recommended, and routine mechanical bowel preparation should be avoided. Patients should be encouraged to ingest a clear carbohydrate drink two to three hours before surgery. The goals of intraoperative fluid management are to maintain central euvolemia and to avoid excess salt and water. To achieve this, patients undergoing surgery within an enhanced recovery protocol should have an individualized fluid management plan. As part of this plan, excess crystalloid should be avoided in all patients. For low-risk patients undergoing low-risk surgery, a “zero-balance” approach might be sufficient. In addition, for most patients undergoing major surgery, individualized goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is recommended. Ultimately, however, the additional benefit of GDFT should be determined based on surgical and patient risk factors. Postoperatively, once fluid intake is established, intravenous fluid administration can be discontinued and restarted only if clinically indicated. In the absence of other concerns, detrimental postoperative fluid overload is not justified and “permissive oliguria” could be tolerated.Item Open Access Gastrointestinal morbidity as primary outcome measure in studies comparing crystalloid and colloid within a goal-directed therapy.(British journal of anaesthesia, 2015-01) Hunsicker, O; Scott, MJ; Miller, TE; Baldini, G; Feldheiser, AItem Open Access Gastrointestinal morbidity as primary outcome measure in studies comparing crystalloid and colloid within a goal-directed therapy.(Br J Anaesth, 2015-07) Hunsicker, O; Scott, MJ; Miller, TE; Baldini, G; Feldheiser, AItem Open Access Monitoring needs and goal-directed fluid therapy within an enhanced recovery program.(Anesthesiol Clin, 2015-03) Minto, Gary; Scott, Michael J; Miller, Timothy EPatients having major abdominal surgery need perioperative fluid supplementation; however, enhanced recovery principles mitigate against many of the factors that traditionally led to relative hypovolemia in the perioperative period. An estimate of fluid requirements for abdominal surgery can be made but individualization of fluid prescription requires consideration of clinical signs and hemodynamic variables. The literature supports goal-directed fluid therapy. Application of this evidence to justify stroke volume optimization in the setting of major surgery within an enhanced recovery program is controversial. This article places the evidence in context, reviews controversies, and suggests implications for current practice and future research.Item Open Access Perioperative fluid and hemodynamic management within an enhanced recovery pathway.(Journal of surgical oncology, 2017-10) Manning, Michael W; Dunkman, William Jonathan; Miller, Timothy EGoal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) seeks to improve outcomes through individualized optimization of oxygen delivery using IV fluid and vasoactive infusions. Trials of GDFT show clinical benefits over traditional liberal fluid administration, but fail to demonstrate benefits when compared to a restrictive strategy within an optimized enhanced recovery protocol. The ideal monitors, hemodynamic goals, and fluid administration strategy are not well established but may be less important than rational application of thoughtful fluid management strategies.Item Open Access Perioperative goal-directed therapy.(J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2014-12) Waldron, Nathan H; Miller, Timothy E; Gan, Tong JItem Open Access State-of-the-art fluid management in the operating room.(Best Practice and Research: Clinical Anaesthesiology, 2014-09) Miller, Timothy E; Raghunathan, Karthik; Gan, Tong JThe underlying principles guiding fluid management in any setting are very simple: maintain central euvolemia, and avoid salt and water excess. However, these principles are frequently easier to state than to achieve. Evidence from recent literature suggests that avoidance of fluid excess is important, with excessive crystalloid use leading to perioperative weight gain and an increase in complications. A zero-balance approach aimed at avoiding fluid excess is recommended for all patients. For major surgery, there is a sizeable body of evidence that an individualized goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) improves outcomes. However, within an Enhanced Recovery program only a few studies have been published, yet so far GDFT has not achieved the same benefit. Balanced crystalloids are recommended for most patients. The use of colloids remains controversial; however, current evidence suggests they can be beneficial in intraoperative patients with objective evidence of hypovolemia.