Intra-Operative Fluid Management in Adult Neurosurgical Patients Undergoing Intracranial Tumour Surgery: Randomised Control Trial Comparing Pulse Pressure Variance (PPV) and Central Venous Pressure (CVP)

Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in neurosurgical patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Perioperative fluid management is critical in neurosurgery as over perfusion can lead to brain edema whereas under perfusion may lead to brain hypoperfusion or ischemia. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) in patients undergoing intracranial surgeries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases and forward-backward citations for studies published between database inception and February 22, 2024. Randomized controlled trials where intraoperative GDFT was performed in neurosurgery and compared to the conventional regime were included in the study. GDFT was compared with the conventional regime as per primary outcomes - total intraoperative fluid requirement, serum lactate, hemodynamics, brain relaxation, urine output, serum biochemistry, and secondary outcomes - intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024518816).

RESULTS

Of 75 records identified, eight were eligible, the majority of which had a low to moderate risk of overall bias. In four studies, more fluid was given in the control group. No difference in postoperative lactate values was noted in 50% of studies. In the remaining 50%, lactate was more in the control group. Three out of four studies did not find any significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative hypotension, and four out of six studies did not find a significant difference in vasopressor requirement. The majority of studies did not show significant differences in urine output, brain relaxation, and length of stay between both groups. None found any difference in acid base status or electrolyte levels.

CONCLUSION

GDFT, when compared to the conventional regime in neurosurgery, showed that the total volume of fluids administered was lesser in the GDFT group with no increase in serum lactate. There was no difference in the hemodynamics, urine output, brain relaxation, urine output, length of stay, and biochemical parameters.

Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in adult patients undergoing craniotomies under general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background and Aims

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has conflicting evidence regarding outcomes in neurosurgical patients. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of GDFT and conventional fluid therapy on various perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Cochrane and preprint servers. The search was conducted up until 16 October 2023, following PROSPERO registration. The search strategy included terms related to GDFT, neurosurgery and perioperative outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials involving adult humans and comparing GDFT with standard/liberal/traditional/restricted fluid therapy were included. The studies were evaluated for risk of bias (RoB), and pooled estimates of the outcomes were measured in terms of risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).

Results

No statistically significant difference was observed in neurological outcomes between GDFT and conventional fluid therapy [RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.10 (0.69, 1.75), two studies, 90 patients, low certainty of evidence using GRADEpro]. GDFT reduced postoperative complications [RR = 0.67 (0.54, 0.82), six studies, 392 participants] and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay [MD (95% CI) were -1.65 (-3.02, -0.28) and -0.94 (-1.47, -0.42), respectively] with high certainty of evidence. The pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the GDFT group [RR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.38, 0.79), seven studies, 442 patients, high certainty of evidence]. Other outcomes, including total intraoperative fluids administered and blood loss, were comparable in GDFT and conventional therapy groups [MD (95% CI) were -303.87 (-912.56, 304.82) and -14.79 (-49.05, 19.46), respectively].

Conclusion

The perioperative GDFT did not influence the neurological outcome. The postoperative complications and hospital and ICU stay were significantly reduced in the GDFT group.

Fluid management in patients undergoing neurosurgery

Fluid management is an important component of perioperative care for patients undergoing neurosurgery. The primary goal of fluid management in neurosurgery is the maintenance of normovolemia and prevention of serum osmolarity reduction. To maintain normovolemia, it is important to administer fluids in appropriate amounts following appropriate methods, and to prevent a decrease in serum osmolarity, the choice of fluid is essential. There is considerable debate about the choice and optimal amounts of fluids administered in the perioperative period. However, there is little high-quality clinical research on fluid therapy for patients undergoing neurosurgery. This review will discuss the choice and optimal amounts of fluids in neurosurgical patients based on the literature, recent issues, and perioperative fluid management practices.

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.

High positive end expiratory pressure levels affect hemodynamics in elderly patients with hypertension admitted to the intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study

Background

To study the effects of different positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) on blood pressure and heart function in elderly patients with hypertension.

Methods

Forty elderly patients above 65 years of age treated with mechanical ventilation were divided into two groups: a control group of non-hypertensive subjects (n = 18) and a hypertension group (n = 22) patients with essential hypertension. Changes in blood pressure, central venous pressure (CVP), central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂), heart rate, and airway pressure were determined in response to different selected PEEP levels of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 cm H₂O under SIMV(PC) + PSV mode throughout the study.

Results

In both groups, the increase in PEEP led to an increase in CVP and airway pressure. When PEEP was above 4 cm H₂O in the hypertension group, a decrease in blood pressure and ScvO₂, and an increase of heart rate were observed. These results indicated that cardiac output significantly decreased.

Conclusion

High levels of PEEP can significantly influence changes in blood pressure and heart function in elderly patients with hypertension.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively registered, The Chinese trial registration number is ChiCTR-ROC-17012873. The date of registration is 10-2-2017.

Pulse Pressure Variation-Guided Fluid Therapy during Supratentorial Brain Tumour Excision: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND:

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) improved patient outcomes in various surgical procedures; however, its role during mass brain resection was not well investigated.

AIM:

In this study, we evaluated a simple protocol based on intermittent evaluation of pulse pressure variation for guiding fluid therapy during brain tumour resection.

METHODS:

Sixty-one adult patients scheduled for supratentorial brain mass excision were randomized into either GDFT group (received intraoperative fluids guided by pulse pressure variation) and control group (received standard care). Both groups were compared according to the following: brain relaxation scale (BRS), mean arterial pressure, heart rate, urine output, intraoperative fluid intake, postoperative serum lactate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS:

Demographic data, cardiovascular data (mean arterial pressure and heart rate), and BRS were comparable between both groups. GDFT group received more intraoperative fluids {3155 (452) mL vs 2790 (443) mL, P = 0.002}, had higher urine output {2019 (449) mL vs 1410 (382) mL, P < 0.001}, and had lower serum lactate {0.9 (1) mmol versus 2.5 (1.1) mmol, P = 0.03} compared to control group.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, PPV-guided fluid therapy during supratentorial mass excision, increased intraoperative fluids, and improved peripheral perfusion without increasing brain swelling.

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.