Goal-directed fluid therapy does not reduce postoperative ileus in gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) aiming to maintain individual fluid balance based on sensitive parameters was prevalent in major surgery, especially in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. This meta-analysis was conducted for the purpose of evaluating whether GDFT impacts on occurrence of postoperative ileus and whether its application is worthwhile in gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS:A systematic search of RCTs compared GDFT with other fluid management in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery from the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library databases was implemented. The primary outcome is incidence of postoperative ileus. Other outcome measures were length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity and mortality. Subgroup analysis was planed a prior to verify the definite role of GDFT. RESULTS:12 trials consisted of 1836 patients were included in the final analysis. GDFT did not influence the occurrence of postoperative ileus (relative risk, RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.47-1.07, P?=?.10), with moderate heterogeneity (I?=?29%, P?=?.16). No difference was found between GDFT and control groups in LOS (mean difference -0.17 days, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.39, P?=?.55), total complication rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05, P?=?.23), and 30-day mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.75, P?=?.77). In other secondary outcomes, only wound infection rate was lower in the GDFT group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93, P?=?.02). When performed subgroup analysis, GDFT was superior in reduction ileus only when compared with standard therapy or in those outside ERAS. CONCLUSIONS:It is possible that GDFT dose not affect the occurrence of postoperative ileus in gastrointestinal surgery. It scarcely influences postoperative morbidity and mortality as well. However, lower incidence of ileus is observed in GDFT group either outside ERAS or compared with standard fluid therapy. Probably, GDFT may not be necessary in the ERAS pathway or if a hybrid approach is adopted.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>GDFT may not be of benefit to all elective patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, particularly those managed in an ERAS setting.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has made great progress in the field of surgery, the guidelines point to the lack of high-quality evidence in upper gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS:Randomized controlled trials in four electronic databases that involved ERAS protocols for upper gastrointestinal surgery were searched through December 12, 2018. The primary endpoints were lung infection, urinary tract infection, surgical site infection, postoperative anastomotic leakage and ileus. The secondary endpoints were postoperative length of stay, the time from end of surgery to first flatus and defecation, and readmission rates. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of surgery. RESULTS:A total of 17 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that there was a decrease in rates of lung infection (RR =?0.50, 95%CI: 0.33 to 0.75), postoperative length of stay (MD?=?-2.53, 95%CI: -?3.42 to -?1.65), time until first postoperative flatus (MD?=?-0.64, 95%CI: -?0.84 to -?0.45) and time until first postoperative defecation (MD?=?-1.10, 95%CI: -?1.74 to -?0.47) in patients who received ERAS, compared to conventional care. However, other outcomes were not significant difference. There was no significant difference between ERAS and conventional care in rates of urinary tract infection (P?=?0.10), surgical site infection (P?=?0.42), postoperative anastomotic leakage (P?=?0.45), readmissions (P?=?0.31) and ileus (P?=?0.25). CONCLUSIONS:ERAS protocols can reduce the risk of postoperative lung infection and accelerating patient recovery time. Nevertheless, we should also consider further research ERAS should be performed undergoing gastrectomy and esophagectomy.
Project description:Background:Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is recommended in most perioperative guidelines for intraoperative fluid management in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. However, the evidence in elective colorectal surgery alone is not well established. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of GDFT with those of conventional fluid therapy on outcomes after elective colorectal surgery. Methods:A meta-analysis of RCTs examining the role of transoesophageal Doppler-guided GDFT with conventional fluid therapy in adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery was performed in accordance with PRISMA methodology. The primary outcome measure was overall morbidity, and secondary outcome measures were length of hospital stay, time to return of gastrointestinal function, 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury, and surgical-site infection and anastomotic leak rates. Results:A total of 11 studies were included with a total of 1113 patients (556 GDFT, 557 conventional fluid therapy). There was no significant difference in any clinical outcome measure studied between GDFT and conventional fluid therapy, including overall morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0·90, 95 per cent c.i. 0·75 to 1·08, P = 0·27; I 2 = 47 per cent; 991 patients), 30-day mortality (RR 0·67, 0·23 to 1·92, P = 0·45; I 2 = 0 per cent; 1039 patients) and length of hospital stay (mean difference 0·01 (95 per cent c.i. -0·92 to 0·94) days, P = 0·98; I 2 = 34 per cent; 1049 patients). Conclusion:This meta-analysis does not support the perceived benefits of GDFT guided by transoesophageal Doppler monitoring in the setting of elective colorectal surgery.
Project description:Background:Several randomized controlled trials suggest that goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) may result in improved postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and financial impact of the real-life implementation of intraoperative GDFT in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery in a Chinese tertiary medical center. Methods:This Quality Improvement Program (QIP) study comprised three phases of 5, 1, and 5 months, respectively. During the first phase, we retrospectively collected perioperative data from patients who received standard intraoperative fluid management from January to May 2016. Then a 1-month training period allowed the clinical staff to become familiar with the GDFT protocol. After the training phase, GDFT was used from July to November 2016. In the GDFT group, stroke volume (SV) was continuously monitored and optimized towards the plateau of the Frank-Starling curve. The primary outcome measure was postoperative morbidity (the proportion of patients with one or more complications within 30 days after surgery). Secondary outcomes were total hospital cost, postoperative length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Results:Data from 200 patients before (control group) and 201 patients after the implementation of GDFT (GDFT group) were collected and compared. There was no significant difference in demographics and surgical procedures between the two groups. Postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the GDFT group than in the control group (30.8% vs. 44.0%, p?=?0.006). No significant differences were observed for mean total hospital cost (76,793 RMB vs. 74,444 RMB; p?=?0.430), median postoperative length of hospital stay (10 days vs. 10 days; p?=?0.104), and 30-day mortality (1% vs. 0.5%; p?=?0.565). Conclusion:In patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, the implementation of a GDFT protocol was associated with a reduction in postoperative morbidity without increasing costs. Trial registration:clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02507557. Registered 13 July 2015.
Project description:Past studies have demonstrated that goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) may be more marginal than previously believed. However, beneficial effects of alpha-1 adrenergic agonists combined with appropriate fluid administration is getting more and more attention. This study aimed to systematically review the effects of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) combined with the application of alpha-1 adrenergic agonists on postoperative outcomes following noncardiac surgery.This meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on GDFT combined with the application of alpha-1 adrenergic agonists in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The primary outcomes included the postoperative mortality rate and length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcome indexes were the incidence of postoperative complications and recovery of postoperative gastrointestinal (GI) function. The traditional pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of fluid therapy. The quality of included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Also, the publication bias was detected using funnel plots, Egger's regression test, and Begg's adjusted rank correlation test. The meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software.Thirty-two eligible RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Perioperative GDFT combined with the application of alpha-1 adrenergic agonists was associated with a significant reduction in LOS (P?=?0.002; I2?=?69%), and overall complication rates (P?=?0.04; I2?=?41%). It facilitated gastrointestinal function recovery, as demonstrated by shortening the time to first flatus by 6.30 h (P?<?0.00001; I2?=?91%) and the time to toleration of solid food by 1.69 days (P?<?0.00001; I2?=?0%). Additionally, there was no significant reduction in short-term mortality in the GDFT combined with alpha-1 adrenergic agonists group (P?=?0.05; I2?=?0%).This systematic review of available evidence suggested that the use of perioperative GDFT combined with alpha-1 adrenergic agonists might facilitate recovery in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Postoperative ileus is a major complication for persons undergoing abdominal surgery. Daikenchuto, a Japanese traditional medicine (Kampo), is a drug that may reduce postoperative ileus. OBJECTIVES:To assess the efficacy and safety of Daikenchuto for reducing prolonged postoperative ileus in persons undergoing elective abdominal surgery. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the following databases on 3 July 2017: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICHUSHI, WHO (World Health Organization) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), EU Crinical Trials registry (EU-CTR), UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, The Japan Society for Oriental Medicine (JSOM), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endscopic Surgeons (SAGES). We set no limitations on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Daikenchuto with any control condition in adults, 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective abdominal surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We applied standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently reviewed the articles identified by literature searches, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane software Review Manager 5. MAIN RESULTS:We included seven RCTs with a total of 1202 participants. Overall, we judged the risk of bias as low in four studies and high in three studies. We are uncertain whether Daikenchuto reduced time to first flatus (mean difference (MD) -11.32 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.45 to -5.19; two RCTs, 83 participants; very low-quality evidence), or time to first bowel movement (MD -9.44 hours, 95% CI -22.22 to 3.35; four RCTs, 500 participants; very low-quality evidence) following surgery. There was little or no difference in time to resumption of regular solid food following surgery (MD 3.64 hours, 95% CI -24.45 to 31.74; two RCTs, 258 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either arm of the five RCTs that reported on drug-related adverse events (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 568 participants, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of Daikenchuto on patient satisfaction (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.37; one RCT, 81 participants; very low-quality of evidence). There was little or no difference in the incidence of any re-interventions for postoperative ileus before leaving hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; one RCT, 207 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -1.21 to 0.22; three RCTs, 292 participants; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from current literature was unclear whether Daikenchuto reduced postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery, due to the small number of participants in the meta-analyses. Very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain whether Daikenchuto improved postoperative flatus or bowel movement. Further well-designed and adequately powered studies are needed to assess the efficacy of Daikenchuto.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare the impact of the use of oral antibiotics (OAB) with or without mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on outcome in elective colorectal surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:Meta-analyses have demonstrated that MBP does not impact upon postoperative morbidity or mortality, and as such it should not be prescribed routinely. However, recent evidence from large retrospective cohort and database studies has suggested that there may be a role for combined OAB and MBP, or OAB alone in the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS:A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies including adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, receiving OAB with or without MBP was performed. The outcome measures examined were SSI, anastomotic leak, 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, development of ileus, reoperation and Clostridium difficile infection. RESULTS:A total of 40 studies with 69,517 patients (28 randomized controlled trials, n = 6437 and 12 cohort studies, n = 63,080) were included. The combination of MBP+OAB versus MBP alone was associated with a significant reduction in SSI [risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.56, P < 0.00001, I = 13%], anastomotic leak (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), 30-day mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.76, P < 0.0001, I = 0%), overall morbidity (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63-0.71, P < 0.00001, I = 0%), and development of ileus (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.98, P = 0.04, I = 36%), with no difference in Clostridium difficile infection rates. When a combination of MBP+OAB was compared with OAB alone, no significant difference was seen in SSI or anastomotic leak rates, but there was a significant reduction in 30-day mortality, and incidence of postoperative ileus with the combination. There is minimal literature available on the comparison between combined MBP+OAB versus no preparation, OAB alone versus no preparation, and OAB versus MBP. CONCLUSIONS:Current evidence suggests a potentially significant role for OAB preparation, either in combination with MBP or alone, in the prevention of postoperative complications in elective colorectal surgery. Further high-quality evidence is required to differentiate between the benefits of combined MBP+OAB or OAB alone.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based on dynamic indicators of fluid responsiveness has been shown to decrease postoperative complications and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The usefulness of this approach still needs to be clarified in low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery. Both pulse-pressure variation (PPV) and pleth variability index (PVI) can be used to guide GDFT strategies. The objective of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to determine if the use of PVI guided GDFT, when compared to PPV guided GDFT, would lead to similar hospital LOS in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk surgery. Secondary outcomes included amount of fluid administered and incidence of postoperative complications. METHODS:Patients were randomized into either PVI or PPV guided GDFT groups. Both received a baseline 2?ml?kg-?1?h-?1 Lactated Ringer infusion. Additional fluid boluses consisted of 250?mL of colloid that was infused over a 10?min period if PVI was >?15% or PPV was >?13% for at least five minutes. The primary outcome was to determine if hospital LOS, which was defined as the number of days from surgery up to the day the surgeon authorized hospital discharge, was equivalent between the two groups. RESULTS:A total of 76 patients were included and they were randomized into two groups of 38 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Both PVI and PPV guided GDFT strategies were equivalent for the primary outcome of LOS (median [interquartile range]) (days) 2.5 [2.0-3.3] vs. 3.0 [2.0-5.0], p?=?0.230, respectively. Fluids infused, postoperative complications, and all other outcomes were not different between groups. CONCLUSION:In patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery, PVI seems to guide GDFT similarly to PPV in regards to hospital LOS, amount of fluid, and incidence of postoperative complications. However, in low-risk patients undergoing these surgical procedures optimizing stroke volume may have limited impact on outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908256 , September 2016, retrospectively registered.
Project description:Goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) has been used in the clinical setting for years. However, the evidence for the beneficial effect of GDHT on postoperative recovery remains inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of perioperative GDHT in comparison with conventional fluid therapy on postoperative recovery in adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers evaluated the effect of perioperative use of GDHT on postoperative recovery in comparison with conventional fluid therapy following abdominal surgery in adults (i.e., >16 years) were considered. The effect sizes with 95% CIs were calculated.Forty-five eligible RCTs were included. Perioperative GDHT was associated with a significant reduction in short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.91, p?=?0.004, I 2?=?0), long-term mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99, p?=?0.04, I 2?=?4%), and overall complication rates (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85, p?<?0.0001, I 2?=?38%). GDHT also facilitated gastrointestinal function recovery, as demonstrated by shortening the time to first flatus by 0.4 days (95% CI -0.72 to -0.08, p?=?0.01, I 2?=?74%) and the time to toleration of oral diet by 0.74 days (95% CI -1.44 to -0.03, p?<?0.0001, I 2?=?92%).This systematic review of available evidence suggests that the use of perioperative GDHT may facilitate recovery in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.
Project description:Importance:Novel approaches to perioperative surgical care focus on optimizing nutrition, mobility, and pain management to minimize adverse events after surgical procedures. Objective:To evaluate the outcomes of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program among 2 target populations: patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and patients undergoing emergency hip fracture repair. Design, Setting, and Participants:A pre-post difference-in-differences study before and after ERAS implementation in the target populations compared with contemporaneous surgical comparator groups (patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery and emergency orthopedic surgery). Implementation began in February and March 2014 and concluded by the end of 2014 at 20 medical centers within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health care delivery system. Exposures:A multifaceted ERAS program designed with a particular focus on perioperative pain management, mobility, nutrition, and patient engagement. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, home discharge, 30-day readmission rates, and complication rates. Results:The study included a total of 3768 patients undergoing elective colorectal resection (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [14.1] years; 1812 [48.1%] male) and 5002 patients undergoing emergency hip fracture repair (mean [SD] age, 79.5 [11.8] years; 1586 [31.7%] male). Comparator surgical patients included 5556 patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery and 1523 patients undergoing emergency orthopedic surgery. Most process metrics had significantly greater changes in the ERAS target populations after implementation compared with comparator surgical populations, including those for ambulation, nutrition, and opioid use. Hospital length of stay and postoperative complication rates were also significantly lower among ERAS target populations after implementation. The rate ratios for postoperative complications were 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46-0.99; P?=?.04) for patients undergoing colorectal resection and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.45-0.99, P?=?.05) for patients with hip fracture. Among patients undergoing colorectal resection, ERAS implementation was associated with decreased rates of hospital mortality (0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.86; P?=?.03), whereas among patients with hip fracture, implementation was associated with increased rates of home discharge (1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.44; P?=?.007). Conclusions and Relevance:Multicenter implementation of an ERAS program among patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and patients undergoing emergency hip fracture repair successfully altered processes of care and was associated with significant absolute and relative decreases in hospital length of stay and postoperative complication rates. Rapid, large-scale implementation of a multidisciplinary ERAS program is feasible and effective in improving surgical outcomes.