Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLai, C
dc.contributor.authorStarkie, T
dc.contributor.authorCreanor, Siobhan
dc.contributor.authorStruthers, R
dc.contributor.authorMellor, N
dc.contributor.authorHosie, K
dc.contributor.authorSneyd, John
dc.contributor.authorMinto, G
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-23T10:10:18Z
dc.date.available2017-01-23T10:10:18Z
dc.date.issued2015-10-01
dc.identifier.issn0007-0912
dc.identifier.issn1471-6771
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/8290
dc.description.abstract

Abstract BACKGROUND: The benefits of stroke volume optimization during surgery are unclear, with recent data not replicating the positive effects of earlier studies.

METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of standard fluid therapy with or without supplementary blinded intraoperative stroke volume optimization in 220 patients having major elective rectal resection or cystectomy with ileal conduit. All patients were treated using a contemporary enhanced recovery pathway. Interventional fluid challenges used Gelofusine (B Braun, Germany), guided by stoke volume variability measured by LiDCOrapid (LiDCO, UK). Participants were stratified by aerobic fitness (characterized by preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test), surgical specialty, and intended surgical approach (open or laparoscopic). The primary outcome was the prevalence of moderate or severe complications on day 5 after surgery, defined using the postoperative morbidity survey (POMS) criteria.

RESULTS: Patients received ∼13 ml kg(-1) h(-1) of i.v. fluids during surgery. The intervention group received an additional mean (sd) 956 (896) ml Gelofusine. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any primary or secondary end point. A positive POMS on postoperative day 5 was noted in 54 of 111 control subjects (48.6%) and 55 of 109 participants in the intervention group [50.5%; adjusted odds ratio 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.52-1.57), P=0.717]. Mean (sd) hospital length of stay was 9.6 (6.8) days in the control group and 11.8 (11.5) days in the intervention group (adjusted difference -2.1 (-4.6 to 0.3) days, P=0.091). There was no statistical interaction between stroke volume optimization and aerobic fitness in terms of rate of complications or length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS: Algorithm-driven stroke volume optimization is of no benefit when superimposed on a liberal baseline fluid regimen in patients having elective major abdominal surgery, when stratified to minimize differences in fitness and surgical approach between groups.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21597243.

dc.format.extent578-589
dc.format.mediumPrint
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.subjectcolorectal surgery
dc.subjectexercise test
dc.subjectfluid therapy
dc.subjecthaemodynamics
dc.subjectpostoperative complications
dc.titleRandomized controlled trial of stroke volume optimization during elective major abdominal surgery in patients stratified by aerobic fitness
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeArticle
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000362305700015&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue4
plymouth.volume115
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/bja/aev299
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED)/CBBB
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-06-15
dc.identifier.eissn1471-6771
dc.rights.embargoperiodNo embargo
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1093/bja/aev299
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-10-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
plymouth.oa-locationhttps://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev299


Files in this item

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