Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Intraoperative Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Elective Major Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Rollins, Katie E.; Lobo, Dileep N.

Intraoperative Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Elective Major Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Thumbnail


Authors

Katie E. Rollins

DILEEP LOBO dileep.lobo@nottingham.ac.uk
Professor of Gastrointestinal Surgery



Abstract

Objectives:

To compare the effects of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) with conventional fluid therapy, and determine whether there was a difference in outcome between studies that did and did not use Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols.

Methods:

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adult patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery comparing intraoperative GDFT versus conventional fluid therapy. The outcome measures were postoperative morbidity, length of stay, gastrointestinal function and 30-day mortality.

Results:

A total of 23 studies were included with 2099 patients: 1040 who underwent GDFT and 1059 who received conventional fluid therapy. GDFT was associated with a significant reduction in morbidity (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.89, P = 0.0007), hospital length of stay (LOS; mean difference −1.55 days, 95% CI −2.73 to −0.36, P = 0.01), intensive care LOS (mean difference −0.63 days, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.09, P = 0.02), and time to passage of feces (mean difference −0.90 days, 95% CI −1.48 to −0.32 days, P = 0.002). However, no difference was seen in mortality, return of flatus, or risk of paralytic ileus. If patients were managed in an ERAS pathway, the only significant reductions were in intensive care LOS (mean difference −0.63 days, 95% CI −0.94 to −0.32, P < 0.0001) and time to passage of feces (mean difference −1.09 days, 95% CI −2.03 to −0.15, P = 0.02). If managed in a traditional care setting, a significant reduction was seen in both overall morbidity (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to −0.84, P = 0.0002) and total hospital LOS (mean difference −2.14, 95% CI −4.15 to −0.13, P = 0.04).

Conclusions:

GDFT may not be of benefit to all elective patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, particularly those managed in an ERAS setting.

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date May 21, 2015
Publication Date 2016-03
Deposit Date Nov 26, 2020
Publicly Available Date Nov 26, 2020
Journal Annals of Surgery
Print ISSN 0003-4932
Publisher Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 263
Issue 3
Pages 465-476
DOI https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001366
Keywords Surgery
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/5070880
Publisher URL https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Fulltext/2016/03000/Intraoperative_Goal_directed_Fluid_Therapy_in.9.aspx

Files





You might also like



Downloadable Citations