Goal-directed perioperative fluid management: why, when, and how?
Section of Surgical Pathophysiology 4074, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark. .Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 6.17). 03/2009; 110(3):453-5. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181984217
Anesthesia & Analgesia 09/2014; 119(3):731-736. DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000186 · 3.42 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Aktuelle Ergebnisse haben gezeigt, dass durch die multimodale Kombination einzelner evidenzbasierter Therapiemaßnahmen (Fast-Track-Methode) eine Verbesserung der postoperativen Regenerationsphase mit Absenkung der Morbidität, reduzierter stationärer Verweildauer und schnellerer Rekonvaleszenz erzielt wird. Trotz damit einhergehender positiver ökonomischer Effekte hat sich die Fast-Track-Chirurgie bisher nur relativ langsam etabliert. Eine weitere Verbesserung des postoperativen Outcomes kann durch die Weiterentwicklung der einzelnen Therapiemaßnahmen erreicht werden, wobei der Fokus insbesondere auf der minimal-invasiven Chirurgie, effektiver multimodaler nichtopioider Analgesie und pharmakologischer Stressreduktion liegen sollte.Der Chirurg 01/2009; 80(8). · 0.52 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy (GDFT) has been previously shown to decrease complications and hospital length of stay in major colorectal surgery but the data are not specific to rectal surgery and may be potentially outdated. This study investigated whether GDFT provides clinical benefits in patients undergoing major elective rectal surgery. Methods: There were 81 consecutive patients in this cohort study. Twenty-seven patients were allotted to GDFT using the Oesophageal Doppler Monitor (ODM) and received boluses of colloid fluid based on corrected flow time and stroke volume. These patients were compared with a historical cohort of the previous 54 patients managed without the ODM. The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day total complications which were defined and graded. Secondary endpoints included hospital length of stay (LOS) and fluid volumes administered. Results: There were no differences at baseline between the two groups. Patients in the treatment group received a higher volume of colloid fluids (1000 mL vs. 500 mL; p < 0.01) but there were no differences in overall fluid volumes administered intraoperatively (3000 mL vs. 3000 mL; p = 0.41). A non-significant trend (p = 0.06) suggested that patients allotted to GDFT had decreased fluid requirement in the first 24 h after surgery. There were no differences in median total fluid volumes (12700 mL vs. 10407 mL; p = 0.95), total complications (22 [81%] vs. 44 [81%]; p = 1.00) or median hospital LOS (9 days vs. 10 days; p = 0.92) between the two groups. Conclusion: Intraoperative GDFT did not improve clinical outcomes following major elective rectal surgery. Copyright © 2014 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.International Journal of Surgery (London, England) 11/2014; 12(12):1467-1472. DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.010 · 1.44 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.