Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFroghi, F
dc.contributor.authorGopalan, V
dc.contributor.authorAnastasiou, Z
dc.contributor.authorKoti, R
dc.contributor.authorGurusamy, K
dc.contributor.authorEastgate, C
dc.contributor.authorMcNeil, M
dc.contributor.authorFilipe, H
dc.contributor.authorPinto, M
dc.contributor.authorSingh, J
dc.contributor.authorLongworth, L
dc.contributor.authorMallett, S
dc.contributor.authorSchofield, N
dc.contributor.authorThorburn, D
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorDavidson, BR
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-28T12:30:15Z
dc.date.issued2022-03
dc.identifier.issn1743-9159
dc.identifier.issn1743-9159
dc.identifier.other106265
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/19101
dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has been shown to reduce the complications following a variety of major surgical procedures, possibly mediated by improved organ perfusion and function. We have shown that it is feasible to randomise patients to GDFT or standard fluid management following liver transplant in the cardiac-output optimisation following liver transplantation (COLT) trial. The current study compares end organ function in patients from the COLT trial who received GDFT in comparison to those receiving standard care (SC) following liver transplant. METHODS: Adult patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing liver transplantation were randomised to GDFT or SC for the first 12 h following surgery as detailed in a published trial protocol. GDFT protocol was based on stroke volume (SV) optimisation using 250 ml crystalloid boluses. Total fluid administration and time to extubation were recorded. Hourly SV and cardiac output (CO) readings were recorded from the non-invasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) device in both groups. Pulmonary function was assessed by arterial blood gas (ABG) and ventilatory parameters. Lung injury was assessed using PaO2:FiO2 ratios and calculated pulmonary compliance. The KDIGO score was used for determining acute kidney injury. Renal and liver graft function were assessed during the post-operative period and at 3 months and 1-year. RESULTS: 60 patients were randomised to GDFT (n = 30) or SC (n = 30). All patients completed the 12 h intervention period. GDFT group received a significantly higher total volume of fluid during the 12 h trial intervention period (GDFT 5317 (2335) vs. SC 3807 (1345) ml, p = 0.003); in particular crystalloids (GDFT 3968 (2073) vs. SC 2510 (1027) ml, p = 0.002). There was no evidence of significant difference between the groups in SV or CO during the assessment periods. Time to extubation, PaO2: FIO2 ratios, pulmonary compliance, ventilatory or blood gas measurements were similar in both groups. There was a significant rise in serum creatinine from baseline (77 μmol/L) compared to first (87 μmol/L, p = 0.039) and second (107 μmol/L, p = 0.001) post-operative days. There was no difference between GDFT and SC in the highest KDIGO scores for the first 7 days post-LT. At 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in need for renal replacement therapy or graft function. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised trial of fluid therapy post liver transplant, GDFT was associated with an increased volume of crystalloids administered but did not alter early post-operative pulmonary or renal function when compared with standard care.

dc.format.extent106265-106265
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectCardiac Output
dc.subjectFluid Therapy
dc.subjectGoals
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLiver Transplantation
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.titleEffect of post-operative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) on organ function after orthotopic liver transplantation: Secondary outcome analysis of the COLT randomised control trial
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeRandomized Controlled Trial
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000860453400015&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.volume99
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalInternational Journal of Surgery
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106265
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-02-09
dc.rights.embargodate2023-2-17
dc.identifier.eissn1743-9159
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106265
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-03
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV