A randomized comparison between pulse pressure variation and central venous pressure in patients undergoing renal transplantation

Assessment of fluid responsiveness after tidal volume challenge in renal transplant recipients: a nonrandomized prospective interventional study

Background

When applying lung-protective ventilation, fluid responsiveness cannot be predicted by pulse pressure variation (PPV) or stroke volume variation (SVV). Functional hemodynamic testing may help address this limitation. This study examined whether changes in dynamic indices such as PPV and SVV, induced by tidal volume challenge (TVC), can reliably predict fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing renal transplantation who receive lung-protective ventilation.

Methods

This nonrandomized interventional study included renal transplant recipients with end-stage renal disease. Patients received ventilation with a 6 mL/kg tidal volume (TV), and the FloTrac system was attached for continuous hemodynamic monitoring. Participants were classified as responders or nonresponders based on whether fluid challenge increased the stroke volume index by more than 10%.

Results

The analysis included 36 patients, of whom 19 (52.8%) were responders and 17 (47.2%) were nonresponders. Among responders, the mean ΔPPV6-8 (calculated as PPV at a TV of 8 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW] minus that at 6 mL/kg PBW) was 3.32±0.75 and ΔSVV6-8 was 2.58±0.77, compared to 0.82±0.53 and 0.70±0.92 for nonresponders, respectively. ΔPPV6-8 exhibited an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.00; P≤0.001), with an optimal cutoff value of 1.5, sensitivity of 94.7%, and specificity of 94.1%. ΔSVV6-8 displayed an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84-1.00; P≤0.001) at the same cutoff value of 1.5, with a sensitivity of 94.7% and a specificity of 76.5%.

Conclusions

TVC-induced changes in PPV and SVV are predictive of fluid responsiveness in renal transplant recipients who receive intraoperative lung-protective ventilation.

The effect of goal-directed fluid therapy on delayed graft function in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common post-operative complication with potential long-term sequelae for many kidney transplant recipients, and hemodynamic factors and fluid status play a role. Fixed perioperative fluid infusions are the standard of care, but more recent evidence in the non-transplant population has suggested benefit with goal-directed fluid strategies based on hemodynamic targets. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry and Google Scholar through December 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing risk of DGF between goal-directed and conventional fluid therapy in adults receiving a living or deceased donor kidney transplant. Effect estimates were reported with odds ratios (OR) and pooled using random effects meta-analysis. We identified 4 studies (205 participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The use of goal-directed fluid therapy had no significant effect on DGF (OR 1.37 95% CI, 0.34-5.6; p = 0.52; I2 = 0.11). Subgroup analysis examining effects among deceased and living kidney donation did not reveal significant differences in the effects of fluid strategy on DGF between subgroups. Overall, the strength of the evidence for goal-directed versus conventional fluid therapy to reduce DGF was of low certainty. Our findings highlight the need for larger trials to determine the effect of goal-directed fluid therapy on this patient-centered outcome.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of goal-directed fluid therapy on postoperative outcomes in renal transplantation surgeries

Introduction

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of intraoperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) compared with conventional fluid therapy on postoperative outcomes in renal transplantation recipients, addressing this gap in current literature.

Method

A systematic search of patients aged ≥18 years who have undergone single-organ primary renal transplantations up to June 2022 in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL Plus was performed. Primary outcome examined was postoperative renal function. Secondary outcomes assessed were mean arterial pressure at graft reperfusion, intraoperative fluid volume and other postoperative complications. Heterogeneity was tested using I² test. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO.

Results

A total of 2459 studies were identified. Seven eligible studies on 607 patients were included. Subgroup assessments revealed potential renal protective benefits of GDT, with patients receiving cadaveric grafts showing lower serum creatinine on postoperative days 1 and 3, and patients monitored with arterial waveform analysis devices experiencing lower incidences of postoperative haemodialysis. Overall analysis found GDT resulted in lower incidence of tissue oedema (risk ratio [RR] 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.78, P=0.01) and respiratory complications (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.90, P=0.03). However, quality of data was deemed low given inclusion of non-randomised studies, presence of heterogeneities and inconsistencies in defining outcomes measures.

Conclusion

While no definitive conclusions can be ascertained given current limitations, this review highlights potential benefits of using GDT in renal transplantation recipients. It prompts the need for further standardised studies to address limitations discussed in this review.

Clinical outcomes of a prospective randomized comparison of bioreactance monitoring versus pulse-contour analysis in a stroke-volume based goal-directed fluid resuscitation protocol in brain-dead organ donors

Eighty percent of brain-dead (BD) organ donors develop hypotension and are frequently hypovolemic. Fluid resuscitation in a BD donor is controversial. We have previously published our 4-h goal-directed stroke volume (SV)-based fluid resuscitation protocol which significantly decreased time on vasopressors and increased transplanting four or more organs. The SV was measured by pulse-contour analysis (PCA) or an esophageal doppler monitor, both of which are invasive. Thoracic bioreactance (BR) is a non-invasive portable technology that measures SV but has not been studied in BD donors. We performed a randomized prospective comparative study of BR versus PCA technology in our fluid resuscitation protocol in BD donors. Eighty-four donors (53.1%) were randomized to BR and 74 donors to PCA (46.8%). The two groups were well matched based on 24 demographic, social, and initial laboratory factors, without any significant differences between them. There was no difference in the intravenous fluid infused over the 4-h study period [BR 2271 ± 823 vs. PCA 2230 ± 962 mL; p = .77]. There was no difference in the time to wean off vasopressors [BR 108.8 ± 61.8 vs. PCA 150.0 ± 68 min p = .07], nor in the number of donors off vasopressors at the end of the protocol [BR 16 (28.6%) vs. PCA 15 (29.4%); p = .92]. There was no difference in the total number of organs transplanted per donor [BR 3.25 ± 1.77 vs. PCA 3.22 ± 1.75; p = .90], nor in any individual organ transplanted. BR was equivalent to PCA in clinical outcomes and provides a simple, non-invasive, portable technology to monitor fluid resuscitation in organ donors.

Pulse Pressure Variance (PPV)-Guided Fluid Management in Adult Patients Undergoing Supratentorial Tumor Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective  Appropriate fluid management in neurosurgery is critical due to the risk of secondary brain injury. Determination of volume status is challenging with static variables being unreliable. Goal-directed fluid therapy with dynamic variables allows reliable determination of fluid responsiveness and promises better outcomes. We aimed to compare the intraoperative fluid requirement between conventional central venous pressure (CVP)-guided and pulse pressure variance (PPV)-guided fluid management in supratentorial tumor surgeries. Materials and Methods  This prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-center trial was conducted with 72 adults undergoing supratentorial tumor surgery in a supine position. Patients were divided into two groups of 36 patients each receiving CVP- and PPV-guided fluid therapy. The CVP-guided group received boluses to target CVP greater than 8 mm Hg along with hourly replacement of intraoperative losses and maintenance fluids. The PPV-guided group received boluses to target PPV less than 13% in addition to maintenance fluids. Total intraoperative fluids administered and the incidence of hypotension was recorded along with the brain relaxation score. Postoperatively, serum lactate levels, periorbital and conjunctival edema, as well as postoperative nausea and vomiting were assessed. Statistical Analyses  All statistical analyses were performed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version-20 (SPSS-20, IBM, Chicago, Illinois, United States). To compare the means between the two groups (CVP vs. PPV), independent samples t -test was used for normal distribution data and Mann-Whitney U test for nonnormal distribution data. The chi-square test or Fischer's exact test was used for categorical variables. Results  The CVP group received significantly more intraoperative fluids than the PPV group (4,340 ± 1,010 vs. 3,540 ± 740 mL, p  < 0.01). Incidence of hypotension was lower in the PPV group (4 [11.1%] vs. 0 [0%], p  = 0.04). Brain relaxation scores, serum lactate levels, periorbital and conjunctival edema, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were comparable between the groups. Conclusion  The requirement for intraoperative fluids was less in PPV-guided fluid management with better hemodynamic stability, adequate brain conditions, and no compromise of perfusion.