Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion · 2024
Intraoperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy targeting both arterial pressure and flow parameters using uncalibrated pulse contour techniques: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ripollés-Melchor J, Espinosa Á V, Fernández-Valdes-Bango P, Navarro-Pérez R, Abad-Motos A, Lorente J V, Colomina M J, Abad-Gurumeta A, Monge-García M I
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT) aims to optimize haemodynamic variables. However, its effectiveness in reducing postoperative complications in major abdominal surgery, particularly when targeting both arterial pressure and flow variables, remains unclear. This meta-analysis addresses this by evaluating GDHT using uncalibrated pulse contour (uPC) methods.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery who received GDHT using uncalibrated pulse contour (uPC) methods for cardiac output monitoring, with predefined targets for both blood flow and blood pressure. The primary outcome was postoperative complications; secondary outcomes included postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), hospital length of stay (EH), intraoperative fluid administration and mortality.
RESULTS: Initial search retrieved 860 reports, with 12 RCTs (1367 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in postoperative complications (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), AKI (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.97), and hospital LOS (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06) with uPC-guided GDHT. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative fluid volume and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing GDHT in major abdominal surgery with predefined arterial pressure and blood flow targets significantly reduces postoperative morbidity and hospital EH without increasing intraoperative fluid administration.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery who received GDHT using uncalibrated pulse contour (uPC) methods for cardiac output monitoring, with predefined targets for both blood flow and blood pressure. The primary outcome was postoperative complications; secondary outcomes included postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), hospital length of stay (EH), intraoperative fluid administration and mortality.
RESULTS: Initial search retrieved 860 reports, with 12 RCTs (1367 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in postoperative complications (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), AKI (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.97), and hospital LOS (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06) with uPC-guided GDHT. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative fluid volume and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing GDHT in major abdominal surgery with predefined arterial pressure and blood flow targets significantly reduces postoperative morbidity and hospital EH without increasing intraoperative fluid administration.