Perioperative goal directed haemodynamic therapy--do it, bin it, or finally investigate it properly?

Intraoperative Urine Output Is Associated with Postoperative Outcome in Pediatric Population Undergone Major Abdominal Operations

Aim

Few data support the advantage of confirming a low urine output target during Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy, which was widely used as an indication for fluid administration. We aimed at evaluating postoperative outcomes in terms of urine output in pediatric patients undergoing elective Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 689 patients who had undergone Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy between January 2007 and August 2014 at the Children’s Hospital of the Chongqing Medical University. Patients were dichotomized according to the average amount of corrected urine output (6.01 mL/kg*h) as a cut-off point. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of renal complications. The secondary endpoints included prompt postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, postoperative complications and hospital length of stay.

Results

The lower urine output had a proportional association with lesser amounts of crystalloid fluids (12.99±6.52 and 17.36±7.74 mL/kg*h for low and high urine output, respectively, p=0.006). For patients with a lower urine output, there were trends toward lower incidence rates of grade II postoperative complications (OR, 0.68; 95CI, 0.45–1.03; p=0.041) and accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal function, as indicated by the first flatus (p=0.015) and first bowel movement (p=0.008); however, the occurrence of renal complications did not show significant differences between the groups. The total length of hospital stay was shorter in patients with low urine output (7.59±1.24 days) than that in patients with a high urine output (8.01±2.31 days, p = 0.016).

Conclusion

Lower urine output is associated with a lower incidence rate II postoperative complications and accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal function, without increasing the occurrence of renal complications in pediatric patient undergone hepaticojejunostomy. The optimal amount of urine output and associated fluid administration should be further investigated.

Goal-directed fluid therapy- a survey of anaesthetists in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand

Background

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has been shown to reduce complications and hospital length of stay following major surgery. However, there has been no assessment regarding its use in clinical practice.

Methods

An electronic survey was administered to randomly selected anaesthetists from the United Kingdom (UK, n = 2000) and the United States of America (USA, n = 2000), and 500 anaesthetists from Australia/New Zealand (AUS/NZ). Preferences, clinical use and attitudes towards GDFT were investigated. Results were collated to examine regional differences.

Results

The response rates from the UK (n = 708) and AUS/NZ (n = 180) were 35%, and 36% respectively. The response rate from the USA was very low (n = 178; 9%). GDFT use was significantly more common in the UK than in AUS/NZ (p < 0.01). The Oesophageal Doppler Monitor was the most preferred instrument in the UK (n = 362; h76%) with no clear preferences in other regions. GDFT was most commonly utilised in major abdominal surgery and for patients with significant comorbidities. The commonest reasons stated for not using GDFT were either lack of availability of monitoring tools (AUS/NZ: 57 (70%); UK: 94 (64%)) or a lack of experience with instruments (AUS/NZ: 43 (53%); UK: 51 (35%)). A subset of respondents (AUS/NZ: 22(27%); UK: 45 (30%)) felt GDFT provided no perceived benefit. Enthusiasm towards the use of GDFT in the absence of existing barriers was high.

Conclusion

Several hypotheses were generated regarding important differences in the use of GDFT between anaesthetists from the UK and AUS/NZ. There is significant interest in utilising GDFT in clinical practice and existing barriers should be addressed.

Does the Pulmonary Artery Catheter Still Have a Role in the Perioperative Period?

The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) was introduced into clinical practice in the early 1970s. Its use quickly expanded beyond patients with acute myocardial infarction to critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. Increasingly, it was used in the perioperative period in patients having major cardiac and noncardiac surgery. Publication of large observational studies suggested that patients with a PAC were more likely to suffer major morbidity or mortality, but this was difficult to assess because patients who had a PAC inserted were often sicker, with more severe pathology, and were therefore more likely to die. The PAC is a monitoring device and information alone is unlikely to influence outcome unless it is linked to a proven therapy. Several thousand articles on the use of the PAC now exist, but in general, the quality of this literature is poor. Much of the data are not randomised, have small sample sizes and include patients with greatly differing pathological states. It is unclear which, if any, of the PAC-guided therapies are actually beneficial for patients. Despite these flaws, there is no clear evidence of benefit, nor harm, in cardiac, intensive care or perioperative patients. Selected indications for the PAC may remain, such as complex cardiac surgery or solid organ transplantation. However, its routine use is difficult to justify and increasingly, most of the haemodynamic data available from the PAC can be obtained less invasively with echocardiography.