Restricted Versus Liberal Versus Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy for Non-vascular Abdominal Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Autor:	Yang TX; Department of Anaesthesiology and Operating Theatre Services, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, HKG., Tan AY; Department of Anaesthesiology and Operating Theatre Services, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, HKG., Leung WH; Department of Anaesthesiology and Operating Theatre Services, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, HKG., Chong D; Department of Anaesthesiology and Operating Theatre Services, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, HKG., Chow YF; Department of Anaesthesiology and Operating Theatre Services, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong, HKG.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Cureus [Cureus] 2023 Apr 28; Vol. 15 (4), pp. e38238. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Apr 28 (Print Publication: 2023).
DOI:	10.7759/cureus.38238
Abstrakt:	Optimal perioperative fluid management is crucial, with over- or under-replacement associated with complications. There are many strategies for fluid therapy, including liberal fluid therapy (LFT), restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) and goal-directed fluid therapy (GDT), without a clear consensus as to which is better. We aimed to find out which is the more effective fluid therapy option in adult surgical patients undergoing non-vascular abdominal surgery in the perioperative period. This study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) with node-splitting analysis of inconsistency, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. We conducted a literature search of Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Only studies comparing restrictive, liberal and goal-directed fluid therapy during the perioperative phase in major non-cardiac surgery in adult patients will be included. Trials on paediatric patients, obstetric patients and cardiac surgery were excluded. Trials that focused on goal-directed therapy monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), as well as those examining purely biochemical and laboratory end points, were excluded. A total of 102 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 78 studies (12,100 patients) were included. NMA concluded that goal-directed fluid therapy utilising FloTrac was the most effective intervention in reducing the length of stay (LOS) (surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 91%, odds ratio (OR) = -2.4, 95% credible intervals (CrI) = -3.9 to -0.85) and wound complications (SUCRA = 86%, OR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.24 to 0.69). Goal-directed fluid therapy utilising pulse pressure variation was the most effective in reducing the complication rate (SUCRA = 80%, OR = 0.25, 95% CrI = 0.047 to 1.2), renal complications (SUCRA = 93%, OR = 0.23, 95% CrI = 0.045 to 1.0), respiratory complications (SUCRA = 74%, OR = 0.42, 95% CrI = 0.053 to 3.6) and cardiac complications (SUCRA = 97%, OR = 0.067, 95% CrI = 0.0058 to 0.57). Liberal fluid therapy was the most effective in reducing the mortality rate (SUCRA = 81%, OR = 0.40, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). Goal-directed therapy utilising oesophageal Doppler was the most effective in reducing anastomotic leak (SUCRA = 79%, OR = 0.45, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 1.5). There was no publication bias, but moderate to substantial heterogeneity was found in all networks. In preventing different complications, except mortality, goal-directed fluid therapy was consistently more highly ranked and effective than standard (SFT), liberal or restricted fluid therapy. The evidence grade was low quality to very low quality for all the results, except those for wound complications and anastomotic leak. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. (Copyright © 2023, Yang et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu