Comparison of conventional fluid management with PVI-based goal-directed fluid management in elective colorectal surgery

Pulse Pressure Variation-Based Intraoperative Fluid Management Versus Traditional Fluid Management for Colon Cancer Patients Undergoing Open Mass Resection and Anastomosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Bowel edema leads to decreased perfusion and oxygenation of the intestine at the anastomotic site after colonic mass resection with failure of healing and leakage. Additionally, dehydration causes bowel hypoperfusion and difficulty healing with more complications. Fluid therapy guided by dynamic monitoring of fluid response can help avoid bowel dehydration and edema with fewer complications.

Objectives

The main goal of this study was to compare the effects of intraoperative fluid therapy based on pulse pressure variation (PPV) to traditional fluid therapy to maintain adequate hydration without intraoperative instability of hemodynamics and postoperative complications.

Methods

This randomized controlled study was conducted on 90 adult patients (age range: 18-70 years) undergoing elective open colonic mass resection and anastomosis at Eldemerdash Hospital, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. There were two groups of patients, namely group A (n = 45; conventional fluid management [CFM] group) and group B (n = 45; goal-guided fluid management [GGFM] group based on PPV), using randomly generated data from a computer. Intraoperative fluids and vasopressors were given using GGFM or routine care. The key tool for directing hemodynamic management in the GGFM algorithm was the fluid protocol and PPV. As a result, the outcomes were measured to include the volume of intraoperative fluid, water fraction, and postoperative complications.

Results

In this study, 90 patients underwent analysis. Both groups' demographics were similar (P > 0.05). Baseline characteristics and surgical procedures did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both the amount of urine output and the intraoperative administration of crystalloids were statistically significantly higher in group A (P < 0.05). The two groups' heart rate, mean arterial pressure and intraoperative usage of colloids and ephedrine were not statistically different (P > 0.05). Water fraction, bowel recovery, anastomotic leak, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the CFM group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

For patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I - II undergoing elective open resection of colonic mass and anastomosis, PPV-based GGFM, a less invasive tool for intraoperative fluid management, might be a better option than CFM.

Restricted Versus Liberal Versus Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy for Non-vascular Abdominal Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Optimal perioperative fluid management is crucial, with over- or under-replacement associated with complications. There are many strategies for fluid therapy, including liberal fluid therapy (LFT), restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) and goal-directed fluid therapy (GDT), without a clear consensus as to which is better. We aimed to find out which is the more effective fluid therapy option in adult surgical patients undergoing non-vascular abdominal surgery in the perioperative period. This study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) with node-splitting analysis of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. We conducted a literature search of Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Only studies comparing restrictive, liberal and goal-directed fluid therapy during the perioperative phase in major non-cardiac surgery in adult patients will be included. Trials on paediatric patients, obstetric patients and cardiac surgery were excluded. Trials that focused on goal-directed therapy monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), as well as those examining purely biochemical and laboratory end points, were excluded. A total of 102 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 78 studies (12,100 patients) were included. NMA concluded that goal-directed fluid therapy utilising FloTrac was the most effective intervention in reducing the length of stay (LOS) (surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 91%, odds ratio (OR) = -2.4, 95% credible intervals (CrI) = -3.9 to -0.85) and wound complications (SUCRA = 86%, OR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.24 to 0.69). Goal-directed fluid therapy utilising pulse pressure variation was the most effective in reducing the complication rate (SUCRA = 80%, OR = 0.25, 95% CrI = 0.047 to 1.2), renal complications (SUCRA = 93%, OR = 0.23, 95% CrI = 0.045 to 1.0), respiratory complications (SUCRA = 74%, OR = 0.42, 95% CrI = 0.053 to 3.6) and cardiac complications (SUCRA = 97%, OR = 0.067, 95% CrI = 0.0058 to 0.57). Liberal fluid therapy was the most effective in reducing the mortality rate (SUCRA = 81%, OR = 0.40, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). Goal-directed therapy utilising oesophageal Doppler was the most effective in reducing anastomotic leak (SUCRA = 79%, OR = 0.45, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). There was no publication bias, but moderate to substantial heterogeneity was found in all networks. In preventing different complications, except mortality, goal-directed fluid therapy was consistently more highly ranked and effective than standard (SFT), liberal or restricted fluid therapy. The evidence grade was low quality to very low quality for all the results, except those for wound complications and anastomotic leak.

Impact of Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy on Postoperative Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) or conventional fluid therapy (CFT) in improving postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal surgeries.

DESIGN

Evidence-Based Review.

METHODS

Following the guidelines outlined in the PRISMA statement, a comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Oxford Academic, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. Only randomized controlled studies and pre-appraised evidence such as systematic review with meta-analysis examining the effects of GDFT and CFT in colorectal surgery were included. The quality appraisal of the literature was conducted using the proposed algorithm described in the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Evidence Level and Quality Guide.

FINDINGS

Two systematic reviews with meta-analyses and four randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving 2018 patients were included in this review. Overall, the use of GDFT did not shorten the hospital length of stay (LOS), reduce 30-day mortality, lower overall morbidity rates, or decrease incidence of postoperative ileus. Additionally, the return of bowel function was not improved using GDFT or CFT. However, when GDFT was implemented within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs, there was a significant reduction in hospital LOS. . When GDFT was used in a non-ERAS patient care setting, there was a significant reduction in overall morbidity rate and faster time to first flatus. All studies included in the review were categorized as Level I and rated Grade A, implying strong confidence in the true effects of GDFT on all outcome measures in the review.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of GDFT in colorectal surgery are still unclear. Considerable heterogeneity based on the types of GDFT devices, patient outcome parameters, and fluid protocols limit the application to clinical practice. Furthermore, there was limited data on the effects of GDFT in high-risk patients for colorectal surgery.

Conventional fluid management versus plethysmographic variability index-based goal directed fluid management in patients undergoing spine surgery in the prone position - a randomised control trial

INTRODUCTION

The plethysmographic variability index (PVI) is a dynamic approach for assessing volume status. This study aims to compare conventional fluid management and PVI based goal-directed fluid management (GDFM) during elective spine surgery in the prone position.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty-six adult patients, ASA I-II, scheduled for elective lumbar spine procedures under general anaesthesia in the prone position were included. Patients were randomly divided into either the Conventional Group with the conventional fluid management protocol or the PVI Group with the PVI-based GDFM protocol. The total amount of intraoperative crystalloid administered was set as a primary outcome. Intraoperative PVI and perfusion index (PI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), the incidence of hypotension after prone positioning in both groups and data from arterial blood gas samples (immediately after induction of anaesthesia [T1] and immediately postoperatively [T2]) were set as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The total amount of intraoperative crystalloids, blood transfusion, urine output, and fluid balance were similar in the two groups ( P -values 0.443, 0.317 and 0.273, respectively). The perioperative MAP and HR values showed no significant differences between the two groups at all time points of measurements. The values of pH, PaO 2 , PaCO 2 , HCO 3 , lactate and haemoglobin showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The blood lactate value at T2 was significantly increased when compared to T1 values in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PVI dependent goal-directed fluid management (GDFM) therapy did not reduce the intraoperative total crystalloid administration or requirements for blood transfusion when compared to conventional fluid management using a fixed fluid rate in patients undergoing spine surgery in a prone position. Clinical trial registration: The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05239286).

Correlation Between Ultrasound-Measured Diameter and Blood Flow Velocity of the Internal Jugular Veins with the Preoperative Blood Volume in Elderly Patients

The study aimed to explore the correlation of the diameter and blood flow velocity of the internal jugular vein with the preoperative blood volume in elderly patients and to providence for rapid evaluation of preoperative blood volume with ultrasound in elderly patients. Thirty patients over 65 years old were recruited in the study. Patient’s central venous pressure (CVP) was recorded before anesthesia. The maximum diameter (Dmax) and the minimum diameter (Dmin) of the left internal jugular vein were measured by M type ultrasound and the respiratory variation index (RVI), defined as (Dmax − Dmin) / Dmax × 100%, was calculated. The maximum blood flow velocity (BVmax) and the minimum blood flow velocity (BVmin) were measured by Doppler ultrasound, and the blood flow variation index (BVI), defined as (BVmax − BVmin) / BVmax × 100%, was calculated. Then, each of the patients was given with 5 ml/kg crystalloid solution, and the relevant data were measured again and compared to that before infusion. The correlation between each measurement index and CVP, and their efficiency in predicting CVP > 6 mmHg were statistically evaluated. No matter before or after infusion, Dmax, Dmin, BVmax, and BVmin were positively correlated with CVP (Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)); and RVI was negatively correlated with CVP (Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)); however, BVI is negatively correlated with the CVP with no statistically significant difference. Through the analysis of ROC curve, Dmax, Dmin, RVI, BVmax, and BVmin could be used to predict the CVP > 6 mmHg in these patients, and the best index was BVmax; BVI diagnosis was not effective. Ultrasonic measurements of internal jugular vein diameter, respiratory variability, and blood flow velocity were correlated with preoperative CVP in elderly patients, indicating that these indexes could potentially be used to evaluate the preoperative blood volume in elderly patients.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes.

METHODS

Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).

RESULTS

The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.

Post-operative outcomes of intra-operative restrictive and conventional fluid management in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

Context

Intra-operative fluid management has been shown to significantly alter a patient's clinical condition in peri-operative care. Studies in the literature that investigated the effects of different amounts of intra-operative fluids on outcomes reported conflicting results.

Aims

To compare the post-operative results of intra-operative restrictive and conventional fluid administrations in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Settings and Design

All patients with ASA I, II and III, and those who had undergone laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery were included. It was a retrospective, cohort study.

Subjects and Methods

A review of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgeries performed by the same fellow-trained colorectal surgeon with different anaesthesiologists between 1 January, 2018 and 30 November, 2021.

Results

In total 80 patients were analysed; 2 patients were excluded, 28 patients were in restrictive (Group R) and 50 patients were in the conventional (Group C) group. The median age of all patients was 63 years and 74% were male. The median (interquartile ranges 25 to 75) intra-operative fluid administration was significantly different between groups; 3 ml/kg/h in Group R, and 7.2 ml/kg/h in Group C. (P < 0.001) Patients in Group C had significantly high post-operative intensive care unit admission (P < 0.05), and hospital length of stay (P = 0.005) compared to Group R.

Conclusions

Intra-operative fluid management was significantly associated with post-operative hospital length of stay and intensive care unit admission. Excessive intra-operative fluid management should be avoided in daily practice to improve the outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Goal-Directed vs Traditional Approach to Intraoperative Fluid Therapy during Open Major Bowel Surgery: Is There a Difference?

Introduction

Optimum perioperative fluid therapy is important to improve the outcome of the surgical patient. This study prospectively compared goal-directed intraoperative fluid therapy with traditional fluid therapy in general surgical patients undergoing open major bowel surgery.

Methodology

Patients between 20 and 70 years of age, either gender, ASA I and II, and scheduled for elective open major bowel surgery were included in the study. Patients who underwent laparoscopic and other surgeries were excluded. After routine induction of general anaesthesia, the patients were randomised to either the control group (traditional fluid therapy), the FloTrac group (based on stroke volume variation), or the PVI group (based on pleth variability index). Fluid input and output, recovery characteristics, and complications were noted.

Results

306 patients, with 102 in each group, were enrolled. Five patients (control (1), FloTrac (2), and PVI (2)) were inoperable and were excluded. Demographic data, ASA PS, anaesthetic technique, duration of surgery, and surgical procedures were comparable. The control group received significantly more crystalloids (3200 ml) than the FloTrac (2000 ml) and PVI groups (1875 ml), whereas infusion of colloids was higher in the FloTrac (400–700 ml) and PVI (200–500 ml) groups than in the control group (0–500 ml). The control group had significantly positive net fluid balance intraoperatively (2500 ml, 9 ml/kg/h) compared to the FloTrac (1515 ml, 5.4 ml/kg/h) and PVI (1420 ml, 6 ml/kg/h) groups. Days to ICU stay, HDU stay, return of bowel movement, oral intake, morbidity, duration of hospital stay, and survival rate were comparable. The total number of complications was not different between the three groups. Anastomotic leaks occurred more often in the Control group than in the others, but the numbers were small.

Conclusions

Use of goal-directed fluid management, either with FloTrac or pleth variability index results in a lower volume infusion and lower net fluid balance. However, the complication rate is similar to that of traditional fluid therapy. This trial is registered with CTRI/2018/04/013016.

Perioperative restrictive versus goal-directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Perioperative fluid management is a crucial element of perioperative care and has been studied extensively recently; however, 'the right amount' remains uncertain. One concept in perioperative fluid handling is goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), wherein fluid administration targets various continuously measured haemodynamic variables with the aim of optimizing oxygen delivery. Another recently raised concept is that perioperative restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) may be beneficial and at least as effective as GDFT, with lower cost and less resource utilization.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether RFT may be more beneficial than GDFT for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases on 11 October 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in the Cochrane Libary; MEDLINE; and Embase. Additionally, we performed a targeted search in Google Scholar and searched trial registries (World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov) for ongoing and unpublished trials. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative RFT versus GDFT for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion and consulted a third review author if necessary. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and for continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with standard deviations (SDs). We used Review Manager 5 software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model. We used Poisson regression models to compare the average number of complications per person.

MAIN RESULTS

From 6396 citations, we included six studies with a total of 562 participants. Five studies were performed in participants undergoing abdominal surgery (including one study in participants undergoing cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)), and one study was performed in participants undergoing orthopaedic surgery. In all studies, surgeries were elective. In five studies, crystalloids were used for basal infusion and colloids for boluses, and in one study, colloid was used for both basal infusion and boluses. Five studies reported the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status of participants. Most participants were ASA II (60.4%), 22.7% were ASA I, and only 16.9% were ASA III. No study participants were ASA IV. For the GDFT group, oesophageal doppler monitoring was used in three studies, uncalibrated invasive arterial pressure analysis systems in two studies, and a non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring system in one study. In all studies, GDFT optimization was conducted only intraoperatively. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. The other five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in one to three domains. RFT may have no effect on the rate of major complications compared to GDFT, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.34; 484 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). RFT may increase the risk of all-cause mortality compared to GDFT, but the evidence on this is also very uncertain (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). In a post-hoc analysis using a Peto odds ratio (OR) or a Poisson regression model, the odds of all-cause mortality were 4.81 times greater with the use of RFT compared to GDFT, but the evidence again is very uncertain (Peto OR 4.81, 95% CI 1.38 to 16.84; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis shows that exclusion of a study in which the final volume of fluid received intraoperatively was higher in the RFT group than in the GDFT group revealed no differences in mortality. Based on analysis of secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay (464 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), surgery-related complications (364 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), non-surgery-related complications (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), renal failure (410 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and quality of surgical recovery (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), GDFT may have no effect on the risk of these outcomes compared to RFT, but the evidence is very uncertain. Included studies provided no data on administration of vasopressors or inotropes to correct haemodynamic instability nor on cost of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether RFT is inferior to GDFT in selected populations of adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The evidence is based mainly on data from studies on abdominal surgery in a low-risk population. The evidence does not address higher-risk populations or other surgery types. Larger, higher-quality RCTs including a wider spectrum of surgery types and a wider spectrum of patient groups, including high-risk populations, are needed to determine effects of the intervention.

Pleth variability index versus pulse pressure variation for intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based on dynamic indicators of fluid responsiveness has been shown to decrease postoperative complications and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The usefulness of this approach still needs to be clarified in low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery. Both pulse-pressure variation (PPV) and pleth variability index (PVI) can be used to guide GDFT strategies. The objective of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to determine if the use of PVI guided GDFT, when compared to PPV guided GDFT, would lead to similar hospital LOS in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk surgery. Secondary outcomes included amount of fluid administered and incidence of postoperative complications.

Methods

Patients were randomized into either PVI or PPV guided GDFT groups. Both received a baseline 2 ml kg^− 1 h^− 1 Lactated Ringer infusion. Additional fluid boluses consisted of 250 mL of colloid that was infused over a 10 min period if PVI was > 15% or PPV was > 13% for at least five minutes. The primary outcome was to determine if hospital LOS, which was defined as the number of days from surgery up to the day the surgeon authorized hospital discharge, was equivalent between the two groups.

Results

A total of 76 patients were included and they were randomized into two groups of 38 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Both PVI and PPV guided GDFT strategies were equivalent for the primary outcome of LOS (median [interquartile range]) (days) 2.5 [2.0–3.3] vs. 3.0 [2.0–5.0], p = 0.230, respectively. Fluids infused, postoperative complications, and all other outcomes were not different between groups.

Conclusion

In patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery, PVI seems to guide GDFT similarly to PPV in regards to hospital LOS, amount of fluid, and incidence of postoperative complications. However, in low-risk patients undergoing these surgical procedures optimizing stroke volume may have limited impact on outcome.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908256, September 2016, retrospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-019-0707-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic variables alone sufficient to improve clinical outcomes among patients undergoing surgery? A meta-analysis

Background

Whether goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness (GDFTdyn) alone improves clinical outcomes in comparison with standard fluid therapy among patients undergoing surgery remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant studies. Studies comparing the effects of GDFTdyn with that of standard fluid therapy on clinical outcomes among adult patients undergoing surgery were considered eligible. Two analyses were performed separately: GDFTdyn alone versus standard fluid therapy and GDFTdyn with other optimization goals versus standard fluid therapy. The primary outcomes were short-term mortality and overall morbidity, while the secondary outcomes were serum lactate concentration, organ-specific morbidity, and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in hospital.

Results

We included 37 studies with 2910 patients. Although GDFTdyn alone lowered serum lactate concentration (mean difference (MD) − 0.21 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 0.39, − 0.03), P = 0.02), no significant difference was found between groups in short-term mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI (0.32, 2.24), P = 0.74), overall morbidity (OR 1.03, 95% CI (0.31, 3.37), P = 0.97), organ-specific morbidity, or length of stay in the ICU and in hospital. Analysis of trials involving the combination of GDFTdyn and other optimization goals (mainly cardiac output (CO) or cardiac index (CIx)) showed a significant reduction in short-term mortality (OR 0.45, 95% CI (0.24, 0.85), P = 0.01), overall morbidity (OR 0.41, 95% CI (0.28, 0.58), P < 0.00001), serum lactate concentration (MD − 0.60 mmol/L, 95% CI (− 1.04, − 0.15), P = 0.009), cardiopulmonary complications (cardiac arrhythmia (OR 0.58, 95% CI (0.37, 0.92), P = 0.02), myocardial infarction (OR 0.35, 95% CI (0.16, 0.76), P = 0.008), heart failure/cardiovascular dysfunction (OR 0.31, 95% CI (0.14, 0.67), P = 0.003), acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 0.13, 95% CI (0.02, 0.74), P = 0.02), pneumonia (OR 0.4, 95% CI (0.24, 0.65), P = 0.0002)), length of stay in the ICU (MD − 0.77 days, 95% CI (− 1.07, − 0.46), P < 0.00001) and in hospital (MD − 1.18 days, 95% CI (− 1.90, − 0.46), P = 0.001).

Conclusions

It was not the optimization of fluid responsiveness by GDFTdyn alone but rather the optimization of tissue and organ perfusion by GDFTdyn and other optimization goals that benefited patients undergoing surgery. Patients managed with the combination of GDFTdyn and CO/CI goals might derive most benefit.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2251-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.