1
|
Zhou FQ. Pyruvate as a Potential Beneficial Anion in Resuscitation Fluids. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 9:905978. [PMID: 35991638 PMCID: PMC9382911 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.905978] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 06/15/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
There have been ongoing debates about resuscitation fluids because each of the current fluids has its own disadvantages. The debates essentially reflect an embarrassing clinical status quo that all fluids are not quite ideal in most clinical settings. Therefore, a novel fluid that overcomes the limitations of most fluids is necessary for most patients, particularly diabetic and older patients. Pyruvate is a natural potent antioxidant/nitrosative and anti-inflammatory agent. Exogenous pyruvate as an alkalizer can increase cellular hypoxia and anoxia tolerance with the preservation of classic glycolytic pathways and the reactivation of pyruvate dehydrogenase activity to promote oxidative metabolism and reverse the Warburg effect, robustly preventing and treating hypoxic lactic acidosis, which is one of the fatal complications in critically ill patients. In animal studies and clinical reports, pyruvate has been shown to play a protective role in multi-organ functions, especially the heart, brain, kidney, and intestine, demonstrating a great potential to improve patient survival. Pyruvate-enriched fluids including crystalloids and colloids and oral rehydration solution (ORS) may be ideal due to the unique beneficial properties of pyruvate relative to anions in contemporary existing fluids, such as acetate, bicarbonate, chloride, citrate, lactate, and even malate. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that pyruvate-enriched saline is superior to 0.9% sodium chloride. Moreover, pyruvate-enriched Ringer’s solution is advantageous over lactated Ringer’s solution. Furthermore, pyruvate as a carrier in colloids, such as hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4, is more beneficial than its commercial counterparts. Similarly, pyruvate-enriched ORS is more favorable than WHO-ORS in organ protection and shock resuscitation. It is critical that pay attention first to improving abnormal saline with pyruvate for ICU patients. Many clinical trials with a high dose of intravenous or oral pyruvate were conducted over the past half century, and results indicated its effectiveness and safety in humans. The long-term instability of pyruvate aqueous solutions and para-pyruvate cytotoxicity is not a barrier to the pharmaceutical manufacturing of pyruvate-enriched fluids for ICU patients. Clinical trials with sodium pyruvate-enriched solutions are urgently warranted.
Collapse
|
2
|
Jaszczuk S, Natarajan S, Papalois V. Anaesthetic Approach to Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Kidney Transplantation: A Narrative Review. J Clin Med 2022; 11:3435. [PMID: 35743505 PMCID: PMC9225521 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11123435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/12/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are designed to reduce medical complications, the length of hospital stays (LoS), and healthcare costs. ERAS is considered safe and effective for kidney transplant (KTx) surgery. KTx recipients are often frail with multiple comorbidities. As these patients follow an extensive diagnostic pathway preoperatively, the ERAS protocol can ideally be implemented at this stage. Small singular changes in a long perioperative pathway can result in significant positive outcomes. We have investigated the current evidence for an ERAS pathway related to anaesthetic considerations in renal transplant surgery for adult recipients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Shweta Natarajan
- Department of Anaesthesia, Imperial College, London W12 0HS, UK;
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Messina A, Robba C, Calabrò L, Zambelli D, Iannuzzi F, Molinari E, Scarano S, Battaglini D, Baggiani M, De Mattei G, Saderi L, Sotgiu G, Pelosi P, Cecconi M. Perioperative liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies and postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and metanalysis on randomised-controlled trials in major abdominal elective surgery. CRITICAL CARE : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE CRITICAL CARE FORUM 2021; 25:205. [PMID: 34116707 PMCID: PMC8194047 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03629-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2021] [Accepted: 06/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Background Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients’ outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. Results After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (− 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0–66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02–0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups Conclusions In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. Trial Registration CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03629-y.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Messina
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Via Alessandro Manzoni, 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy. .,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
| | - Chiara Robba
- Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Calabrò
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Via Alessandro Manzoni, 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Daniel Zambelli
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Via Alessandro Manzoni, 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Francesca Iannuzzi
- Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy.,Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Edoardo Molinari
- Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy.,Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Silvia Scarano
- Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy.,Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Denise Battaglini
- Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy
| | - Marta Baggiani
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Maggiore Della Carità University Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - Giacomo De Mattei
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Laura Saderi
- Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - Giovanni Sotgiu
- Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - Paolo Pelosi
- Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy.,Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Maurizio Cecconi
- Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Via Alessandro Manzoni, 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Messina A, Robba C, Calabrò L, Zambelli D, Iannuzzi F, Molinari E, Scarano S, Battaglini D, Baggiani M, De Mattei G, Saderi L, Sotgiu G, Pelosi P, Cecconi M. Association between perioperative fluid administration and postoperative outcomes: a 20-year systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized goal-directed trials in major visceral/noncardiac surgery. CRITICAL CARE : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE CRITICAL CARE FORUM 2021; 25:43. [PMID: 33522953 PMCID: PMC7849093 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03464-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Accepted: 01/07/2021] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Background Appropriate perioperative fluid management is of pivotal importance to reduce postoperative complications, which impact on early and long-term patient outcome. The so-called perioperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) approach aims at customizing perioperative fluid management on the individual patients’ hemodynamic response. Whether or not the overall amount of perioperative volume infused in the context of GDT could influence postoperative surgical outcomes is unclear.
Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of GDT approach between study population and control group in reducing postoperative complications and perioperative mortality, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register. The enrolled studies were grouped considering the amount infused intraoperatively and during the first 24 h after the admission in the critical care unit (perioperative fluid). Results The metanalysis included 21 RCTs enrolling 2729 patients with a median amount of perioperative fluid infusion of 4500 ml. In the studies reporting an overall amount below or above this threshold, the differences in postoperative complications were not statically significant between controls and GDT subgroup [43.4% vs. 34.2%, p value = 0.23 and 54.8% vs. 39.8%; p value = 0.09, respectively]. Overall, GDT reduced the overall rate of postoperative complications, as compared to controls [pooled risk difference (95% CI) = − 0.10 (− 0.14, − 0.07); Chi2 = 30.97; p value < 0.0001], but not to a reduction of perioperative mortality [pooled risk difference (95%CI) = − 0.016 (− 0.0334; 0.0014); p value = 0.07]. Considering the rate of organ-related postoperative events, GDT did not reduce neither renal (p value = 0.52) nor cardiovascular (p value = 0.86) or pulmonary (p value = 0.14) or neurological (p value = 0.44) or infective (p value = 0.12) complications. Conclusions Irrespectively to the amount of perioperative fluid administered, GDT strategy reduces postoperative complications, but not perioperative mortality. Trial Registration CRD42020168866; Registration: February 2020 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=168866
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Messina
- Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Rozzano, MI, Italy. .,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
| | - Chiara Robba
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.,Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Calabrò
- Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Daniel Zambelli
- Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Francesca Iannuzzi
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Edoardo Molinari
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Silvia Scarano
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Denise Battaglini
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Marta Baggiani
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Maggiore Della Carità University Hospital, Novara, Italy
| | - Giacomo De Mattei
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Laura Saderi
- Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - Giovanni Sotgiu
- Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - Paolo Pelosi
- Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Genoa, Italy.,Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostic (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Maurizio Cecconi
- Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Rozzano, MI, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
| |
Collapse
|