Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy: an imprecise umbrella term to avoid

Intra-operative haemodynamic monitoring and management of adults having noncardiac surgery: A statement from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care

This article was developed by a diverse group of 25 international experts from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC), who formulated recommendations on intra-operative haemodynamic monitoring and management of adults having noncardiac surgery based on a review of the current evidence. We recommend basing intra-operative arterial pressure management on mean arterial pressure and keeping intra-operative mean arterial pressure above 60 mmHg. We further recommend identifying the underlying causes of intra-operative hypotension and addressing them appropriately. We suggest pragmatically treating bradycardia or tachycardia when it leads to profound hypotension or likely results in reduced cardiac output, oxygen delivery or organ perfusion. We suggest monitoring stroke volume or cardiac output in patients with high baseline risk for complications or in patients having high-risk surgery to assess the haemodynamic status and the haemodynamic response to therapeutic interventions. However, we recommend not routinely maximising stroke volume or cardiac output in patients having noncardiac surgery. Instead, we suggest defining stroke volume and cardiac output targets individually for each patient considering the clinical situation and clinical and metabolic signs of tissue perfusion and oxygenation. We recommend not giving fluids simply because a patient is fluid responsive but only if there are clinical or metabolic signs of hypovolaemia or tissue hypoperfusion. We suggest monitoring and optimising the depth of anaesthesia to titrate doses of anaesthetic drugs and reduce their side effects.

Intraoperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy targeting both arterial pressure and flow parameters using uncalibrated pulse contour techniques: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT) aims to optimize haemodynamic variables. However, its effectiveness in reducing postoperative complications in major abdominal surgery, particularly when targeting both arterial pressure and flow variables, remains unclear. This meta-analysis addresses this by evaluating GDHT using uncalibrated pulse contour (uPC) methods.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery who received GDHT using uncalibrated pulse contour (uPC) methods for cardiac output monitoring, with predefined targets for both blood flow and blood pressure. The primary outcome was postoperative complications; secondary outcomes included postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), hospital length of stay (EH), intraoperative fluid administration and mortality.

RESULTS

Initial search retrieved 860 reports, with 12 RCTs (1367 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in postoperative complications (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), AKI (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.97), and hospital LOS (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06) with uPC-guided GDHT. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative fluid volume and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing GDHT in major abdominal surgery with predefined arterial pressure and blood flow targets significantly reduces postoperative morbidity and hospital EH without increasing intraoperative fluid administration.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy algorithms during surgery for the prevention of surgical site infection

Background

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT) may help to prevent SSI, but recommendations for its use initially have been set at conditional because of low-certainty evidence at the time. An updated systematic review with SSI as the primary endpoint has not been performed since 2011, and important new evidence has emerged. We assessed the influence of GDHT on SSI and other postoperative outcomes.

Methods

We searched Ovid/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase.com), and Cochrane library from inception up to September 2024 for randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of any GDHT algorithm to conventional fluid therapy on SSI incidence in adult patients undergoing surgery and analysed eligible data using random effects. We conducted several subgroup analyses, including the risk of bias (RoB), and a trial sequential analysis (TSA). We evaluated the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022277535.

Findings

We found 75 studies that met the inclusion criteria with an incidence of 1,478 SSI among 13,010 patients (11.4%). The incidence of SSI was reduced from 13.3% in the conventional fluid therapy to 9.4% after GDHT (absolute risk reduction 3.9%); pooled relative risk 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.81). Subgroup analysis for the low RoB studies revealed comparable results. Meta-regression indicated no strong evidence for individual subgroup effects. In the TSA, the cumulative z-line crossed the boundary for effect.

Interpretation

High-certainty evidence indicates that GDHT reduces the risk of SSI when compared to conventional fluid therapy in adults undergoing surgery. New studies are unlikely to change this outcome. These findings justify a stronger recommendation for the use of GDHT.

Funding

Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.

Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future

During surgery, various haemodynamic variables are monitored and optimised to maintain organ perfusion pressure and oxygen delivery - and to eventually improve outcomes. Important haemodynamic variables that provide an understanding of most pathophysiologic haemodynamic conditions during surgery include heart rate, arterial pressure, central venous pressure, pulse pressure variation/stroke volume variation, stroke volume, and cardiac output. A basic physiologic and pathophysiologic understanding of these haemodynamic variables and the corresponding monitoring methods is essential. We therefore revisit the pathophysiologic rationale for intraoperative monitoring of haemodynamic variables, describe the history, current use, and future technological developments of monitoring methods, and finally briefly summarise the evidence that haemodynamic management can improve patient-centred outcomes.

Exploring the need for reconsideration of trial design in perioperative outcomes research: a narrative review

"Enhanced recovery after surgery" is a multimodal effort to control perioperative pathophysiology and improve outcome. However, despite advances in perioperative care, postoperative complications and the need for hospitalisation and prolonged recovery continue to be challenging. This is further complicated by procedure-specific and patient-associated risk factors, given the increase in the number of elderly and frail patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing surgery. This paper is a critical assessment of current methodology for trials in perioperative medicine. We make a plea to reconsider the design of future interventional trials to improve surgical outcome, based upon studies of potentially effective interventions, but often without improvements in recovery. The complexity of perioperative pathophysiology necessitates a procedure- and patient-specific approach whenever outcome is assessed or interventions are planned. With improved understanding of perioperative pathophysiology, the way to improve outcomes looks promising, provided that knowledge and established enhanced recovery programmes are integrated in trial design.

Funding

None.

Perioperative Fluid and Vasopressor Therapy in 2050: From Experimental Medicine to Personalization Through Automation

Intravenous (IV) fluids and vasopressor agents are key components of hemodynamic management. Since their introduction, their use in the perioperative setting has continued to evolve, and we are now on the brink of automated administration. IV fluid therapy was first described in Scotland during the 1832 cholera epidemic, when pioneers in medicine saved critically ill patients dying from hypovolemic shock. However, widespread use of IV fluids only began in the 20th century. Epinephrine was discovered and purified in the United States at the end of the 19th century, but its short half-life limited its implementation into patient care. Advances in venous access, including the introduction of the central venous catheter, and the ability to administer continuous infusions of fluids and vasopressors rather than just boluses, facilitated the use of fluids and adrenergic agents. With the advent of advanced hemodynamic monitoring, most notably the pulmonary artery catheter, the role of fluids and vasopressors in the maintenance of tissue oxygenation through adequate cardiac output and perfusion pressure became more clearly established, and hemodynamic goals could be established to better titrate fluid and vasopressor therapy. Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques, using echography, pulse contour analysis, and heart-lung interactions, have facilitated hemodynamic monitoring at the bedside. Most recently, advances have been made in closed-loop fluid and vasopressor therapy, which apply computer assistance to interpret hemodynamic variables and therapy. Development and increased use of artificial intelligence will likely represent a major step toward fully automated hemodynamic management in the perioperative environment in the near future. In this narrative review, we discuss the key events in experimental medicine that have led to the current status of fluid and vasopressor therapies and describe the potential benefits that future automation has to offer.