Post on 22-Jul-2020
transcript
META-ANALYSIS
Intraoperative Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in ElectiveMajor Abdominal Surgery
A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Katie E. Rollins, MRCS and Dileep N. Lobo, DM, FRCS, FACS, FRCPE
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 post-
operative 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, P¼ 0.0007), hospital length of stay
(LOS; mean difference �1.55 days, 95% CI �2.73 to �0.36, P¼ 0.01),
intensive care LOS (mean difference �0.63 days, 95% CI �1.18 to �0.09,
P¼ 0.02), and time to passage of feces (mean difference �0.90 days, 95% CI
�1.48 to �0.32 days, P¼ 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, P¼ 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, P¼ 0.0002) and total hospital LOS (mean difference �2.14, 95% CI
�4.15 to �0.13, P¼ 0.04).
Conclusions: GDFT may not be of benefit to all elective patients undergoing
major abdominal surgery, particularly those managed in an ERAS setting.
Keywords: complications, goal-directed fluid therapy, intraoperative, meta-
analysis, outcome
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
From Gastrointestinal Surgery, National Institute for Health Research NottinghamDigestive Diseases Biomedical Research Unit, Nottingham University Hos-pitals and University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham,UK.
Disclosure: Supported by a Research Fellowship awarded by the European Societyfor Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN; to KER). The sponsors had norole in the design, execution, and reporting of the study. DNL has receivedunrestricted research funding and speaker’s honoraria from Fresenius Kabi, B.Braun Medical, and Baxter Healthcare for unrelated work. DNL is Chairmanof the Scientific Committee of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery(ERAS1) Society. KER declares no conflicts of interest.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citationsappear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions ofthis article on the journal’s Web site (www.annalsofsurgery.com).
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0, where it is permiss-ible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The workcannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
Reprints: Dileep N. Lobo, DM, FRCS, FACS, FRCPE, Nottingham Digestive DiseasesCentre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG72UH, United Kingdom. E-mail: dileep.lobo@nottingham.ac.uk.
Copyright � 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.ISSN: 0003-4932/14/26105-0821DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001366
Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016
(Ann Surg 2016;263:465–476)
I ntraoperative hypovolemia caused by loss of as little as 10% to15% of blood volume can result in an appreciable fall in splanch-
nic perfusion, which often outlasts the period of hypovolemia.1 Thisresults in an intramucosal acidosis of the gut,2 leading to a cascade ofevents that impair postoperative gastrointestinal function and causecomplications. 3 Postoperative gastrointestinal morbidity in the formof an inability to tolerate oral or enteral tube feeding, nausea,vomiting, and abdominal distension can be responsible for over halfof delayed discharges.4 This concept led to the use of intraoperativegoal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) in which relatively small-volume(200–250 mL) boluses of fluid (usually a colloid) over backgroundcrystalloid infusions have been used to increase stroke volume andcardiac output, improve gut perfusion,1 and decrease gut mucosalacidosis.
A number of methods, including transesophageal Doppler(TED), lithium dilution, arterial pulse contour analysis, thoracicelectrical bioimpedance, partial non-rebreathing systems, and trans-pulmonary thermodilution techniques have been used to measureintraoperative stroke volume and cardiac output and, thereby, helpdirect fluid therapy.5 The methods used most frequently in clinicalpractice are the TED and lithium dilution techniques. The commonestalgorithm assesses the change in stroke volume in response to a fluidbolus of 200 to 250 mL infused over 5 to 10 minutes. An increase instroke volume of more than 10% in response to this bolus signifieshypovolemia and indicates the need for a further bolus. An increase instroke volume of 10% or less suggests adequate filling and continu-ation of the background crystalloid infusion without the need foranother fluid bolus. A reduction in stroke volume by more than 10%during continued monitoring necessitates a further bolus and repetitionof the cycle. Variations in this methodology include monitoring ofstroke volume variation and corrected flow time (FTc).6,7
Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses8–11 pub-lished in the first decade of the twenty-first century suggested thatintraoperative GDFT resulted in a statistically significant reductionin postoperative complication rates and length of stay (LOS) whencompared with patients receiving conventional intraoperative fluidtherapy. This led to intraoperative GDFT being recommended as astandard of care by the UK National Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence (NICE).12 However, postoperative fluid therapy regimenswere not clear in most of the early studies, and perioperative care wasnot standardized. Avoidance of postoperative salt and water overloadand maintaining patients in as near a state to zero fluid balance aspossible has been shown to reduce both complication rates and lengthof hospital stay even in patients not receiving GDFT.13–16 Inaddition, the use of fast-track or Enhanced Recovery After Surgery(ERAS) protocols,17,18 which are multimodal perioperative carepathways designed to reduce the metabolic stress of surgery andaccelerate postoperative recovery, have resulted in fewer compli-cations [risk ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4–0.7] and
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.annalsofsurgery.com | 465
Rollins and Lobo Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016
reduction in LOS by 2.5 (95% CI�3.5 to�1.5) days after colorectalsurgery when compared with patients managed with traditionalcare.19 More recent trials14,17,18 in which patients have been managedwithin ERAS protocols with avoidance of postoperative fluid over-load have suggested that, although intraoperative GDFT resulted inimprovement of cardiovascular variables when compared with con-ventional fluid therapy, there was no significant difference in clinicaloutcomes.14,20,21
The aims of this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials ofintraoperative GDFT versus conventional fluid therapy in patientsundergoing elective major abdominal surgery were to
�
46
compare the effects of intraoperative GDFT with conventionalfluid therapy on postoperative complications, length of hospitalstay, gastrointestinal function, and mortality.
�
determine whether there was a difference in outcome betweenstudies that used ERAS protocols for perioperative care and thosethat did not.METHODS
Search StrategyA search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science,
GoogleTM Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases was con-ducted to identify studies evaluating the impact of intraoperativegoal-directed fluid therapy on postoperative elective surgical out-comes in all branches of surgery published in all languagesbetween January 1995 and December 2014. Electronic searchterms used were [‘‘goal-directed fluid therapy’’ OR ‘‘flow-directed fluid therapy’’] AND [‘‘surgery’’ OR ‘‘intraoperative’’]and the search was limited to adult patients undergoing electivesurgery. The bibliography of studies that met the inclusion criteriawere also searched for other relevant articles and conferenceabstracts to ensure study inclusion was as comprehensive aspossible. The meta-analysis was conducted according to thePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.22
Selection of ArticlesFull-text articles were screened after exclusion of citations on
the basis of article title and abstract. We selected studies if theyincluded adult patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgerywho were randomized to receive either GDFT or conventional intra-operative fluid therapy and if the study reported at least 1 relevantpostoperative outcome. ‘‘Major abdominal surgery’’ included general,vascular, gynecologic, and urologic procedures where the bowel washandled. We excluded studies if they involved patients undergoingnon-abdominal surgery such as cardiac, orthopedic, or peripheralvascular surgery, included emergency surgical procedures, did notreport any relevant clinical outcome measures, or if both groupsreceived GDFT. One study23 was excluded due to retraction of a largenumber of articles by 1 of the authors. We discussed studies where theinclusion criteria were not clear and made a final decision.
Data ExtractionData were extracted by 1 author (KER) and checked by
another (DNL). The primary outcome measure was postoperativemorbidity with secondary outcome measures being 30-day mortality,hospital and intensive care LOS, time to return of gastrointestinalfunction (flatus and feces), and incidence of paralytic ileus. Datawere also collated on patient demographics (age, sex, AmericanSociety of Anesthesiology [ASA] grade), surgical variables (surgicalprocedure, number of laparoscopic cases, and estimated blood loss),and intraoperative fluid administration (overall, colloid and
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
6 | www.annalsofsurgery.com
crystalloid, and inotrope administration). We noted the method ofadministration of GDFT and whether patients were managedusing ERAS principles (eg, if stated by the authors or having acombination of 4 or more elements such as avoidance of prolongedpreoperative starvation, provision of preoperative carbohydrate load-ing, use of thoracic epidural analgesia, avoidance of premedication,opioids and postoperative fluid overload, and early postoperativefeeding and mobilization)17,18 or traditional care. We contacted thecorresponding author on 3 occasions over a 6-week period if the datarequired were not available in the article. If the authors did notprovide the data, the medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) wereconverted to means and standard deviations (SDs) using the tech-nique described by Hozo et al.24 This technique uses the median asthe best estimate of the mean, and the SD is calculated by thefollowing formula:
SD ¼ Upper limit of IQR� Lower limit of IQR
1:35
The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collabor-ation tool in RevMan 5.3,25 which focuses upon random sequencegeneration (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias),blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blindingof outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data(attrition bias), and selective reporting (reporting bias).
Statistical AnalysisRevMan 5.3 software25 was used for data analysis. Dichoto-
mous variables were quoted as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI andanalyzed using the Mantel–Haenszel random effects model. Continu-ous variables were quoted as a mean difference using a random effectsmodel with 95% CI and analyzed using the inverse-variance randomeffects model. Forest plots were constructed and a P value less than0.05 on 2-tailed testing signified a statistically significant difference.Study heterogeneity and inconsistency was assessed using the I2
statistic26: less than 25%—low heterogeneity, 25% to 50%—moderateheterogeneity, and more than 50%—high heterogeneity. A predeter-mined secondary analysis was conducted on results obtained when theintervention was delivered within or without ERAS protocols. Thequality of the evidence for each outcome was comprehensivelyassessed and graded using GRADEpro software.27
Protocol RegistrationWe registered the protocol for this meta-analysis with the
PROSPERO database (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero)—registrationno. CRD42014015595.
RESULTS
From 294 studies identified, 23 studies were eligible for inclu-sion (Fig. 1).6,7,21,28–47 There were 8 studies based in colorectal sur-gery,6,21,36–39,45,46 1 in upper gastrointestinal surgery,29 2 in urology,34,40
1 in abdominal vascular surgery,47 1 in gynecology,35 and 10 ina range of abdominal procedures.7,28,30–33,41–44 The risk of bias inthe studies included was low and, in general, study quality was high (seeSupplemental Digital Content Table 1, available at http://links.lww.com/SLA/A853). The quality of the evidence for each outcome in the meta-analysis is summarized in Supplemental Digital Content Table 2,available at http://links.lww.com/SLA/A854. Although there was norisk of bias or indirectness for all end-points, therewas inconsistency andimprecision for hospital and intensive therapy unit (ITU) LOS.
DemographicsThe 23 randomized controlled trials included a total of 2099
patients, of whom 1040 had been randomized to intraoperative
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
FIGURE 1. PRISMA diagram showing identification of relevantstudies from initial search.
Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016 Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Abdominal Surgery
GDFT and 1059 to traditional intraoperative fluid managementstrategies. GDFT was administered as part of an ERAS programin 10 studies6,21,30,34,36–40,45 and as part of a traditional recoverypathway in 13.7,28,29,31–33,35,41–44,46,47 The method for administeringGDFT in the studies was: TED in 12,6,7,21,34–40,45,46 hemodynamicparameters from radial arterial line (including lithium dilution) in9,29–33,42–44,47 pleth variability index from the pulse oximeter in 1,41
and a noninvasive cardiac output monitoring device in 1.28 Patientdemographics are detailed in Table 1.
Fluid TherapyThere was some variation in fluid therapy over time (Table 2).
One of the earliest studies7 infused 4405� 2650 mL lactated Ringersolution and 847� 373 mL 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) intra-operatively in the GDFT group versus 4375� 2452 mL Ringer and282� 470 mL HES in the control group. In contrast, the mostrecently published study21 administered 1500 mL (1000–2000 mL) intraoperative crystalloid and 500 mL (250–750 mL)colloid in the GDFT group versus 1400 mL (1000–1900 mL) and0 mL (0–300 mL) in the control group.
MorbidityEighteen studies6,7,21,28,31,32,35–39,41,42,44–47 on 899 patients
managed with GDFT versus 914 patients with traditional fluidmanagement reported morbidity rates (Fig. 2). These were furtherdivided by whether the patients had been managed as part of anERAS pathway (866 patients) or as part of a traditional care pathway(947 patients). One study30 focused on cardiac morbidity alone, butthese data are included in the overall analysis. Overall morbiditywas significantly lower in patients managed with GDFT versusthose in the control group (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.89,P¼ 0.0007). When just those managed with GDFT in a traditionalcare pathway setting were considered, morbidity rates were alsosignificantly lower in the GDFT group when compared with controls(RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.84, P¼ 0.0002). However, when theGDFT was administered in conjunction with an ERAS pathway,it did not result in a reduction in morbidity risk (RR 0.86, 95% CI0.70–1.05, P¼ 0.14). The funnel plot for the primary outcomemeasure of morbidity showed no major asymmetry to indicate asignificant bias in either group.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
MortalityMortality rates were detailed in 18 studies6,7,21,28,29,32,35,37–47
that included 855 patients in the GDFT group and 870 in thetraditional group (Fig. 3). Overall, there was no statistically signifi-cant difference in the incidence of mortality between GDFT andcontrol patients, nor was there any difference in those managed withan ERAS pathway or traditional care.
Hospital Length of StayOverall hospital LOS was reported in all studies except one32
included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 4). However, 2 studies30,34
reported only median (IQR) data, and we were unable to obtainthe mean�SD from the authors. These data were estimated using thetechnique described by Hozo et al.24 and all data were included in theanalysis of hospital LOS. There were 1043 patients managed in anERAS setting and 1014 in a traditional setting (Fig. 4). GDFTresulted in a significant decrease in hospital length of stay in theoverall group (mean difference�1.55 days, 95% CI�2.73 to�0.36,P¼ 0.01). If patients managed in a traditional care setting werespecifically examined, GDFT again resulted in a significantreduction in overall hospital LOS (mean difference �2.14 days,95% CI �4.15 to �0.13, P¼ 0.04). However, there was no signifi-cant difference in hospital LOS in those managed with an ERASpathway (mean difference �0.71 days, 95% CI �1.91 to 0.49,P¼ 0.25).
Intensive Care Length of StayPostoperative LOS in the ITU was reported in 8 stud-
ies28,30,32,41–44,46 (Fig. 4). Again, 3 studies30,44,46 provided only median(IQR) data; therefore, estimated mean�SD data were included forthese studies. Only 1 study in an ERAS setting reported intensive careLOS,30 whereas 7 studies in a traditional setting reported this. GDFTresulted in a significant reduction in intensive care LOS (Fig. 4) in allpatients (mean difference �0.63 days, 95% CI �1.18 to �0.09,P¼ 0.02) and in the 1 study in which patients were managed withan ERAS pathway (mean difference �0.63 days, 95% CI �0.94 to�0.32, P< 0.0001). GDFT, however, made no significant difference tointensive care LOS in those patients managed within a traditionalcare setting.
Return of Gastrointestinal FunctionEleven studies examined time to return of gastrointestinal
function postoperatively, in the form of passage of flatus,28,31,38
feces,6,29,33,35,45 or both.30,39,40 First, considering time to passage flatusin all studies including those with calculated data (Fig. 5), there were334 patients who were managed with GDFT and 345 in the controlgroup. There was no significant difference in the time to passage offlatus in either the overall group or in those managed in combinationwith traditional care or an ERAS pathway.
When time to passage of feces was considered, 365 patientswere managed with GDFT and 370 with control intraoperative fluid(Fig. 5). GDFT resulted in a significant reduction in time to passageof feces in the overall group (mean difference �0.90 days, 95%CI �1.48 to �0.32 days, P¼ 0.002) as well as those managed withGDFT in combination with an ERAS pathway (mean difference�1.09 days, 95% CI �2.03 to �0.15, P¼ 0.02). However, thisdifference was not significant in patients managed in a traditionalcare setting.
Incidence of Postoperative IleusSeven studies (707 patients) included data on the incidence of
postoperative ileus in 345 patients managed with intraoperative
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.annalsofsurgery.com | 467
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
TA
BLE
1.
Base
line
Pati
en
tD
em
og
rap
hic
sfo
rA
llIn
clud
ed
Stu
die
s
Nu
mb
ero
fP
ati
ents
Ty
pe
of
Su
rger
yL
ap
aro
sco
pic
Ap
pro
ach
AS
A1
:2:3
:4
Ref
eren
ceE
RA
So
rT
rad
itio
na
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
l
Pes
tan
a2
01
428
Tra
dit
ion
al7
27
05
4co
lon
ic,
2ab
do
min
op
eri-
nea
lre
sect
ion
,1
1g
astr
icsu
rger
y,5
oth
er
50
colo
nic
,3
abd
om
ino
per
i-n
eal,
11
gas
tric
,6
oth
er0
02
:31
:37
:22
:34
:34
:0
Ph
an2
01
421
ER
AS
50
50
12
rig
ht
hem
ico
lect
om
y,1
7an
teri
or
rese
ctio
n,
21
oth
er(2
9ca
nce
rsu
rger
y)
14
rig
ht
hem
ico
lect
om
y,2
2an
teri
or
rese
ctio
n,
1ab
dom
i-n
op
erin
eal,
13
oth
er(3
4ca
n-
cer
surg
ery
)
31
(ad
dit
ion
al8
conv
erte
dto
op
en)
28
(ad
dit
ion
al8
conver
ted
too
pen
)
Med
ian
AS
Acl
ass
2(1
–3
)M
edia
nA
SA
clas
s2
(1–
3)
Zen
g2
01
429
Tra
dit
ion
al3
03
0A
llra
dic
alg
astr
icca
nce
rsu
rger
yA
llra
dic
alg
astr
icca
nce
rsu
rger
yN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed0
:31
:9:0
0:3
2:8
:0
Zh
eng
20
13
30
ER
AS
30
30
6g
astr
ecto
my,
4ra
dic
alg
as-
trec
tom
yfo
rca
nce
r,7
pro
c-te
ctom
y,9
par
tial
smal
lbow
elre
sect
ion,
4ra
dic
alco
lect
om
yfo
rca
nce
r
5g
astr
ecto
my,
6ra
dic
alg
as-
trec
tom
yfo
rca
nce
r,6
pro
c-te
cto
my,
7p
arti
alsm
all
bow
elre
sect
ion,
6ra
dic
alco
lect
om
yfo
rca
nce
r
00
0:1
1:1
9:0
0:1
3:1
7:0
Sal
zwed
el2
01
331
Tra
dit
ion
al7
98
14
7b
ow
el,
32
no
n-b
ow
el4
1b
ow
el,
40
no
n-b
ow
el0
03
3A
SA
III
33
AS
AII
IS
chee
ren
20
13
32
Tra
dit
ion
al2
62
61
1m
ajo
rab
do
min
alsu
rger
y,1
5ra
dic
alcy
stec
tom
y1
2m
ajo
rab
do
min
alsu
rger
y,1
4ra
dic
alcy
stec
tom
yN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed0
:0:2
4:2
0:0
:26
:0
Ram
sin
gh
20
13
33
Tra
dit
ion
al1
82
08
gy
neo
nco
log
yin
clu
din
gT
AH
/BS
O,
5G
Isu
rger
yin
c.sm
all
and
larg
eb
ow
el,
3u
rolo
gic
on
colo
gy
inc.
cyst
ecto
my
wit
hil
eal
con
-d
uit
,2
Wh
ipp
le’s
pro
ced
ure
s
9g
yn
eon
colo
gy,
8G
Isu
rger
y,0
uro
log
ic,
3W
hip
-p
le’s
pro
ced
ure
s
00
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Bu
nd
gaa
rd-
Nie
lsen
20
13
34
ER
AS
21
21
All
op
enra
dic
alp
rost
atec
t-o
my
All
open
radic
alpro
stat
ect-
om
y0
01
4:7
:0:0
12
:9:0
:0
McK
enny
20
13
35
Tra
dit
ion
al5
15
05
1m
ajo
rg
yn
ecolo
gic
(36
mal
ign
ant;
19
ovar
ian
can
-ce
r)
50
maj
or
gy
nec
olo
gic
(36
mal
ign
ant;
17
ovar
ian
can-
cer)
00
Mea
nA
SA
2.0
(0.6
)M
ean
AS
A2
.0(0
.7)
Sri
niv
asa
20
13
36
ER
AS
37
37
14
rig
ht
hem
ico
lect
om
y,4
exte
nd
edri
gh
th
emic
ole
ct-
om
y,1
4h
igh
ante
rio
rre
sec-
tio
n,
5to
tal/
sub
tota
lco
lect
om
y
17
rig
ht
hem
ico
lect
om
y,5
exte
nd
edri
gh
th
emic
ole
ct-
om
y,1
4h
igh
ante
rio
rre
sec-
tio
n,
1to
tal/
subto
tal
cole
cto
my
56
5:2
0:1
2:0
5:1
5:1
7:0
Zak
hal
eva
20
13
38
ER
AS
32
40
24
cole
cto
my,
7p
roct
ect-
om
y,1
smal
lb
ow
elre
sect
ion
-1
6m
alig
nan
t,1
1b
enig
n,
5in
flam
mat
ory
bow
eld
isea
se
30
cole
cto
my,
6p
roct
ect-
om
y,4
smal
lbow
elre
sect
ion
-1
7m
alig
nan
t,1
9b
enig
n,
4in
flam
mat
ory
bow
eld
isea
se
16þ
2co
n-
ver
ted
too
pen
19þ
5co
n-
ver
ted
too
pen
0:7
:26:0
0:7
:32
:0
Bra
ndst
rup
20
12
37
ER
AS
71
79
All
elec
tive
colo
rect
alA
llel
ecti
ve
colo
rect
al32,
addit
ional
11
conver
ted
from
lap
aro
-sc
op
icto
op
en
38
,ad
dit
ion
al1
2co
nver
ted
fro
mla
par
o-
sco
pic
too
pen
26
:37
:8:0
20
:43
:16
:0
Ch
alla
nd
20
12
39
ER
AS
89
90
32
colo
nic
,5
7re
ctal
(65
carc
ino
ma)
37
colo
nic
,5
3re
ctal
(68
carc
ino
ma)
28
37
11
:51
:27
(3þ
4)
11
:52
:27
(3þ
4)
Pil
lai
20
11
40
ER
AS
32
34
All
rad
ical
cyst
ecto
my
for
bla
dd
erca
nce
rA
llra
dic
alcy
stec
tom
yfo
rb
ladd
erca
nce
r0
0M
ean
AS
Acl
ass
1.8
7(9
5%
CI
1.7
7–
2.0
4)
Mea
nA
SA
clas
s1
.92
(1.0
8–
2.0
4)
Rollins and Lobo Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016
468 | www.annalsofsurgery.com � 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved
.Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
TA
BLE
1.
(Conti
nued
)
Nu
mb
ero
fP
ati
ents
Ty
pe
of
Su
rger
yL
ap
aro
sco
pic
Ap
pro
ach
AS
A1
:2:3
:4
Ref
eren
ceE
RA
So
rT
rad
itio
na
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
l
Fo
rget
20
10
41
Tra
dit
ion
al4
14
17
up
per
gas
tro
inte
stin
al,
11
hep
ato
bil
iary
,2
4lo
wer
gas
tro
inte
stin
al
5u
pp
erg
astr
oin
test
inal
,1
5h
epat
ob
ilia
ry,
22
low
erg
astr
oin
test
inal
55
0:2
2:1
9:0
0:2
2:1
9:0
Ben
es2
01
042
Tra
dit
ional
60
60
17
colo
rect
al,
5p
ancr
eati
c,38
intr
aabdom
inal
vas
cula
r1
6co
lore
ctal
,3
pan
crea
tic,
41
intr
aab
do
min
alvas
cula
rN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed0
:14
:37
:90
:11
:40
:9
Bu
ettn
er2
00
843
Tra
dit
ion
al4
04
0E
lect
ive
maj
or
abd
om
inal
surg
ery
Ele
ctiv
em
ajo
rab
do
min
alsu
rger
yN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
edM
edia
nA
SA
clas
s2
(1–
3)
Med
ian
AS
Acl
ass
2(1
–3
)L
op
es2
00
744
Tra
dit
ion
al1
71
64
up
per
gas
tro
inte
stin
al,
3h
epat
ob
ilia
ry,
10
colo
rect
al4
up
per
gas
troin
test
inal
,2
hep
ato
bil
iary
,8
colo
rect
al,
1u
rolo
gy,
1o
ther
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
0:3
:8:6
0:3
:9:4
No
ble
tt2
00
66
ER
AS
51
52
30
colo
nic
,2
4re
ctal
25
colo
nic
,2
9re
ctal
13
13
Mea
nA
SA
clas
s2
.1(0
.6)
Mea
nA
SA
clas
s2
.2(0
.6)
Wak
elin
g2
00
545
ER
AS
64
64
31
ante
rio
ran
dab
do
min
o-
per
inea
lre
sect
ion,
15
left
hem
ian
dsi
gm
oid
cole
cto
my,
15
right
hem
icole
ctom
y,3
rever
sal
of
Har
tman
n’s
33
ante
rio
ran
dab
do
min
o-
per
inea
lre
sect
ion
,1
5le
fth
emi
and
sig
moid
cole
cto
my,
9ri
gh
th
emic
ole
cto
my,
4su
bto
tal
cole
cto
my,
2re
ver
-sa
lo
fH
artm
ann
’s,
1C
rohn
’sre
sect
ion
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Med
ian
AS
Acl
ass
2(1
)M
edia
nA
SA
clas
s2
(1)
Co
nw
ay2
00
246
Tra
dit
ion
al2
92
8A
llm
ajo
rb
ow
elsu
rger
yA
llm
ajo
rb
ow
elsu
rger
yN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
edM
edia
nA
SA
clas
s1
(1–
3)
Med
ian
AS
Acl
ass
2(1
–3
)G
an2
00
27
Tra
dit
ion
al5
05
01
6g
ener
al,
13
gy
nec
olo
gy,
21
uro
log
y1
5g
ener
al,
19
gy
nec
olo
gy,
16
uro
log
y3
:36
:11
:08
:32
:10
:0
Bo
naz
zi2
00
247
Tra
dit
ion
al5
05
0A
llin
frar
enal
abd
om
inal
aort
ican
eury
smre
pai
rA
llin
frar
enal
abd
om
inal
aort
ican
eury
smre
pai
r0
0N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed
Ato
tal
of
569
mal
esan
d400
fem
ales
inth
eG
DF
Tar
mver
sus
570
mal
esan
d418
fem
ales
inth
eco
ntr
ol
gro
up.
Pat
ient
sex
was
not
stat
edin
2st
udie
s.6,3
6
Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016 Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Abdominal Surgery
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. www.annalsofsurgery.com | 469
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
TA
BLE
2.
Intr
aop
era
tive
Fluid
Infu
sed
inth
eG
oal-d
irect
ed
an
dC
on
trolG
roup
s
Av
era
ge
To
tal
Flu
idIn
fuse
d(m
L)
Av
era
ge
Cry
sta
llo
id(m
L)
Av
era
ge
Co
llo
idB
olu
s(m
L)
Av
era
ge
Blo
od
Lo
ss(m
L)
Req
uir
emen
tfo
rP
erio
per
ati
ve
Inotr
op
es
Ref
eren
ceG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
l
Pes
tan
a2
01
428
25
00
(16
25
–3
00
0)
23
25
(16
00
–3
00
0)
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
2.4
bo
luse
s�
1.8�
1.3
bo
luse
s�
1.4�
30
0(2
00
–5
00
)2
50
(20
0–
40
0)
18
do
bu
ta-
min
e,5
no
r-ad
ren
alin
e,2
5ep
hed
rin
e
1d
obu
tam
ine,
4n
ora
dre
na-
lin
e,2
2ep
he-
dri
ne
Ph
an2
01
421
21
90
(13
50
–2
56
0)�
15
00
(12
00
–2
00
0)�
15
00
(10
00
–2
00
0)
14
00
(10
00
–1
90
0)
50
0(2
50
–7
50
)�0
(0–
30
0)�
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Zen
g2
01
429
27
32�
48
8�
31
35�
34
6�
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
12
25�
36
0�
76
0�
28
0�
48
2�
16
84
73�
15
6N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
edZ
hen
g2
01
330
26
50
(24
00
–3
20
0)�
39
50
(28
75
–4
20
0)�
15
50
(14
00
–1
92
5)�
23
50
(20
00
–2
92
5)�
10
00
(90
0–
11
00)�
80
0(6
00
–1
00
0)�
20
0(1
00
–3
62
.5)
20
0(1
00
–8
00
)4
(13
.3)
6(2
0)
Sal
zwed
el2
01
331
38
54.2�
19
54.2
37
70.8�
28
27
.52
86
2�
12
16
26
80.2�
11
53
.87
73
.7�
66
4.6
72
4.7�
72
0.2
66
8.2�
67
6.6
70
4.4�
88
9.6
33
do
bu
tam
ine�
,2
6n
ore
pi-
nep
hri
ne,
0p
hen
yle
ph
rin
e,1
1ep
hed
rin
e
0d
obu
tam
ine�
,3
2n
ore
pi-
nep
hri
ne,
4p
hen
yle
ph
rin
e,8
eph
edri
ne
Sch
eere
n2
01
332
44
77
(21
07)
45
28
(23
87
)N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed1
58
9(1
28
3)�
92
7(8
45
)�9
84
(64
7)
11
18
(10
57)
No
rep
i-n
eph
rin
ed
osa
ge
0.0
4m
g/k
g/
min
(0.0
6)
0.0
5m
g/k
g/
min
(0.0
5)
Ram
sin
gh
20
13
33
40
82
.2�
20
44�
68
45.6�
38
93.4�
33
43
.3�
15
63
.7�
58
51.5�
31
97.9�
54
4.4�
49
3.5
42
2.5�
59
0.8
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Bu
nd
gaa
rd-N
iels
en2
01
334
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
18
79
(12
05
–2
05
2)
16
36
(14
28
–1
84
3)
17
58
(14
41
–2
07
6)�
10
57
(77
8–
13
36
)�1
28
5(8
75
–1
69
6)
11
52
(77
4–
15
30)
Aver
age
9m
gep
hed
rin
e(4
–1
3)
Aver
age
15
mg
eph
e-d
rin
e(8
–2
2)
McK
enny
20
13
35
26
20
28
81
10
00
(78
7–
17
50)�
20
00
(17
25
–2
50
0)�
10
00
(10
00
–1
50
0)�
50
0(0
–1
00
0)�
50
0(3
11
–7
45
)6
00
(32
6–
10
00)
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Sri
niv
asa
20
13
36
19
94
(59
0)�
16
14
(42
0)�
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
59
1(4
71
)�2
97
(27
5)�
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
31
(83
.7)
34
(91
.9)
Zak
hal
eva
20
13
38
31
00
(70
0–
77
000
)4
00
0(9
00
–6
20
0)
27
00
(50
0–
65
00)
32
00
(50
0–
56
00)
50
0(0
–2
80
0)�
30
0(0
–4
50
0)�
10
0(1
0–
65
0)
10
0(1
0–
50
0)
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Bra
ndst
rup
20
12
37
18
76�
14
91�
Sal
ine
and
LR
:4
83
(41
9)
44
3(4
80
)8
10
(54
3)�
47
5(5
98
)�N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed
Ch
alla
nd
20
12
39
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
34
79
(11
81)
35
93
(13
98)
17
18
(44
6)�
33
6(6
23
)�5
00
(20
0–
10
00)�
25
0(1
00
–5
00
)�N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed
Pil
lai
20
11
40
0.2
3m
L/k
g/
min
(0.2
1–
0.2
5)�
0.1
9m
L/k
g/
min
(0.1
5–
0.2
)�
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
9.8
2m
L/k
g(9
5%
CI
7.5
3–
12
.12
)
10
.7m
L/k
g(8
.42
–1
2.9
)N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed
Fo
rget
20
10
41
23
94
(20
97
–2
69
2)�
29
18
(24
78
–3
35
8)�
13
63
(11
85
–1
54
0)�
18
15
(15
68
–2
06
4)�
89
0(7
09
–1
07
2)
10
03
(77
9–
12
27)
34
9(2
30
–4
68
)4
40
(24
2–
63
7)
9co
nti
nu
ou
sn
ore
pi-
nep
hri
ne
infu
-si
on
9co
nti
nuo
us
no
rep
i-n
eph
rin
ein
fu-
sion
Ben
es2
01
042
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
23
21�
68
12
45
9�
93
01
42
5(1
00
0–
15
00)�
10
00
(54
0–
12
50
)�7
00
(50
0–
12
00
)8
00
(40
0–
13
25)
3(5
.88
%)
no
rep
i-n
eph
rin
e,2
(3.9
2%
)d
obu
-ta
min
e
11
(20
.37
%)
no
rep
i-n
eph
rin
e,0
do
bu
tam
ine
Bu
ettn
er2
00
843
60
00
52
50
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
30
29
Lo
pes
20
07
44
46
18�
15
57�
16
94�
70
5�
21
76�
10
60
15
63�
02
22
47�
69
7�
0�
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Rollins and Lobo Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016
470 | www.annalsofsurgery.com � 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved
.Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
TA
BLE
2.
(Conti
nued
)
Av
era
ge
To
tal
Flu
idIn
fuse
d(m
L)
Av
era
ge
Cry
sta
llo
id(m
L)
Av
era
ge
Co
llo
idB
olu
s(m
L)
Av
era
ge
Blo
od
Loss
(mL
)R
equ
irem
ent
for
Per
iop
era
tiv
eIn
otr
op
es
Ref
eren
ceG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
lG
DF
TC
on
tro
l
No
ble
tt2
00
66
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
22
98
(86
3)
26
25
(10
04)
13
40
(83
8)
12
09
(82
4)
25
0(4
0–
24
55
)4
75
(10
0–
29
00)
16
(31
)�2
6(5
0)�
Wak
elin
g2
00
545
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
30
00
30
00
20
00�
15
00�
50
0(7
00
)5
00
(97
5)
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
Co
nw
ay2
00
246
64
.6m
L/k
g(3
6.4
)5
5.2
mL
/kg
(24
)N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed2
8m
L/k
g(1
6)
19
.4m
L/k
g(1
4.7
)N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed
Gan
20
02
7N
ot
stat
edN
ot
stat
ed4
40
5�
26
50
43
75�
24
52
84
7�
37
3�
28
2�
47
0�
70
3�
64
96
24�
63
28
(16
)1
3(2
6)
Bo
naz
zi2
00
247
45
00
(32
50
–6
50
0)�
32
50
(25
00
–4
75
0)�
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
10
00
(45
0–
27
50
)1
10
0(5
00
–2
50
0)
No
tst
ated
No
tst
ated
� Indic
ates
stat
isti
call
ysi
gnif
ican
tdif
fere
nce
bet
wee
nG
DF
Tan
dco
ntr
ol
gro
ups.
Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016 Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Abdominal Surgery
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
GDFT versus 362 patients in the control group6,21,28,36–38,40 (Fig. 5).The use of GDFT did not affect the incidence of postoperative ileussignificantly in either the overall group or in those managed incombination with either traditional care or an ERAS pathway.
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials including2099 patients has demonstrated that, in patients undergoing electivemajor abdominal surgery, GDFT was associated with a significantreduction in overall morbidity, LOS (both hospital and intensive care),and time to passage of feces when compared with conventionalintraoperative fluid therapy when all studies were considered. How-ever, there were no significant differences in short-term mortality, timeto passage of flatus, or risk of paralytic ileus.
When the effect of GDFT was considered in the setting ofERAS pathways, which are being implemented increasingly interna-tionally, there was no statistically significant impact on morbidityand mortality, hospital LOS, time to passage of flatus, or incidence ofparalytic ileus. A significant reduction in intensive care LOS withGDFT was seen, but this was based on a single study.30 When theimpact of GDFT was considered in the setting of a traditional carepathway, a significant reduction in morbidity and overall hospitalLOS was seen when compared with controls, but there was nosignificant difference in any other outcome considered.
The studies included in this meta-analysis were conductedover a 12-year period during which significant advances have beenmade in the concept and implementation of ERAS principles andthere is evidence that ERAS programs are associated with reducedhospital LOS,19,48,49 decreased morbidity, and improved cost-effec-tiveness.50 The studies were conducted in a variety of surgical special-ties which have differing expected LOS; however, if the studiesexamining colorectal surgery alone are analyzed,6,21,36–39,45 LOShas declined progressively over a temporal scale from 12.0� 7.5 daysin 2005 45 to 7.48� 3.8 days in 2014.21 With the ongoing push fordecreasing LOS, reinforced by recent reports of 2-day51 and 23-hour52
hospital stays for laparoscopic colorectal resection, the margin foroverall improvement in LOS provided by GDFT may decrease.Overall heterogeneity was high for LOS (90%) and, although itreduced to 61% for the ERAS group, it was still high. Therefore, itis not certain whether the lack of difference in the LOS in the ERASsubgroup was a time-dependent effect or a reflection of the effect ofERAS pathways.
The other issue raised by the temporal spread of the results isthat of the volume of fluid infused intraoperatively. This volume haschanged drastically from the earliest to more recent papers, with aprogressively greater difference in volume infused between GDFTand conventional fluid management groups, suggesting that theconcept and impact of GDFT may have changed during this period.It is possible that, in the early phase of introduction of GDFT, patientswere being frequently fluid overloaded intraoperatively. Given thatpostoperative morbidity is associated in a U-shaped manner with thevolume of intraoperative fluid infused,51 excessive fluid adminis-tration in some of these studies may have attenuated some of thepotential benefits of GDFT. Further to this, the majority of earlystudies did not consider the importance of postoperative salt andwater overload, which may also have impacted negatively on out-come. In contrast, near-zero fluid balance is considered more care-fully in recent studies due to advancing knowledge of the importanceof these factors52 in the perioperative setting. The provision of high–chloride-containing fluids, with the resultant undesirable hyper-chloremic acidosis,53–55 may also have masked some benefits pro-vided by GDFT. Worldwide, there is now a move away from 0.9%saline-based fluids to balanced crystalloids and colloids, and this
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.annalsofsurgery.com | 471
FIGURE 2. Forest plot comparing overallmorbidity rate for patients receivingGDFT versus control, divided by thosemanaged using ERAS or traditional prin-ciples. A Mantel–Haenszel randomeffects model was used to conduct themeta-analysis, and risk ratios are quotedincluding 95% confidence intervals.(Zheng et al., 201330 considered cardiacmorbidity alone).
Rollins and Lobo Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016
may lead to a further improvement in outcomes.56 One further factorto consider is that different studies have employed different goals forGDFT, and the emphasis of this has evolved over time. In the earlierstudies included in this meta-analysis, patients were given fluidboluses if they were fluid responsive, regardless of their hemody-namic status, to maximize stroke volume by pushing patients to thetop of their Frank–Starling curve. This approach is likely to result in
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
472 | www.annalsofsurgery.com
fluid overload by ‘‘optimizing’’ patients to a point where they are nolonger fluid responsive rather than assessing ‘‘good enough’’ resus-citation. In contrast, more contemporary studies administer bolusfluid only if patients were fluid responsive and had evidence ofhemodynamic compromise, which may be reflected in the overallsmaller volumes administered in more recent studies where a targetof near-zero fluid balance was employed.
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
FIGURE 3. Forest plot comparing in-hos-pital or 30-day mortality rate for patientsreceiving GDFT versus control, divided bythose managed using ERAS or traditionalprinciples. A Mantel–Haenszel randomeffects model was used to conduct themeta-analysis, and risk ratios are quotedincluding 95% confidence intervals.
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
FIGURE 4. Forest plot comparing overallhospital LOS (top) and intensive treat-ment unit (ITU) LOS (bottom) forpatients receiving GDFT versus controlincluding studies with estimated data,divided by those managed using ERASor traditional principles. An inverse-var-iance random effects model was used toconduct the meta-analysis, and meandifferences are quoted including 95%confidence intervals.
Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016 Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Abdominal Surgery
The present study was conducted using rigorous method-ology and represents the largest meta-analysis examining the role ofGDFT versus conventional intraoperative fluid management inpatients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. Not onlydid we set out to establish the difference in clinical outcomemeasures but also at the outset a secondary outcome of comparingthose managed within ERAS pathways with those who were man-aged in traditional care setting was specified. This secondaryanalysis has resulted in some interesting observations in outcomesbetween the 2 settings, which appear to differ considerably. Afurther strength was that to ensure the data were as complete aspossible for all studies included, most importantly the mean�SDdata for continuous variables, all authors were contacted on 3separate occasions requesting the necessary raw data rather thanthe median (IQR). Unfortunately, not all authors responded to therequest for information, and data for several studies 30,34,40,44 wereestimated for inclusion in the meta-analysis. This estimation wasdone using an established method24 that has been employed in othermeta-analyses.
This meta-analysis had several weaknesses inherent in itsdesign and conduct. The methodology for conducting GDFTdiffered greatly between studies, including TED,6,7,21,34–40,45,46
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
hemodynamic parameters from an arterial line,29–33,42–44,47 plethvariability index from the pulse oximeter,41 and a noninvasivecardiac output monitoring device.28 Inclusion of all techniquesfor conducting GDFT was chosen purposefully to ensure that theconclusions of this meta-analysis were generalizable to differentGDFT methods. However, subgroup analyses comparing the variousmethods was not feasible because of the small numbers of patientswho were managed with techniques other than TED or monitoring ofhemodynamic parameters from arterial lines. One factor that wasnot measured consistently between the studies was that of post-operative fluid administration and overall balance, which maysignificantly impact upon some of the postoperative outcomes.The use of rescue therapy such as diuretics and inotropes is alsodifficult to discern from the studies. None of the ERAS pathwaystudies included an assessment of compliance with the ERASstandards, which is particularly important because of the correlationbetween compliance with the standards and clinical outcomes.57–59
There was a large degree of heterogeneity in the studiesincluded in this review. Using the I2 statistic26 for the 7 clinicaloutcomes, 1 outcome had low (I2< 25%), 3 had moderate (I2 25%–50%), and 3 had high heterogeneity (I2> 50%). This great variationmay have impacted upon the significance of the results. In addition,
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.annalsofsurgery.com | 473
FIGURE 5. Forest plot comparing time toreturn of flatus and feces and incidence ofparalytic ileus for patients receiving GDFTversus control including studies with esti-mated data, divided by those managedusing ERAS or traditional principles. Aninverse-variance random effects modelwas used to conduct the meta-analysis,and mean differences are quoted includ-ing 95% confidence intervals. The Man-tel-Haenszel random effects model withrisk ratios was used for postoperativeileus.
Rollins and Lobo Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016
to improve generalizability, we included all studies that includedpatients who had major abdominal surgery where the bowel washandled. It was also not possible to differentiate the effects oftemporal changes in perioperative management algorithms and othertreatment interventions such as the use of vasopressors from theeffect of GDFT.
NICE guidance12 released in 2011 on the use of TED-guidedfluid therapy has recommended its use ‘‘in patients undergoing majoror high-risk surgery or other surgical patients in whom a clinicianwould consider using invasive cardiovascular monitoring.’’ However,this guidance was made mainly on the findings of older studies, some
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
474 | www.annalsofsurgery.com
of which were on patients undergoing cardiac and hip fracturesurgery and most of which were conducted within a traditionalsetting of perioperative care. All studies included in the presentmeta-analysis focused on patients who would meet the criteria formajor or high-risk surgery, making this meta-analysis an excellentsetting in which to examine the potential benefits of this technique.By comparing the older studies with newer studies that have beenconducted using multimodal enhanced recovery perioperative carepathways, we have shown in our meta-analysis that modern peri-operative care reduces the impact of GDFT on outcome. This couldhelp inform healthcare providers better and facilitate a more rational
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016 Goal-directed Fluid Therapy in Abdominal Surgery
decision-making process before recommending GDFT as ‘‘standardof care.’’ Given the unclear benefits of GDFT found in this study,particularly in those managed within an ERAS pathway, it isuncertain whether this recommendation ought to be adopted forall patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery.
The bolus fluid administered as part of the GDFT protocol in theincluded studies was variable, with HES being the documented fluidadministered in 14 studies.7,21,28,29,32,34,35,37,39,41–44,46 However, therehas recently been a moratorium in Europe on the use of HES due toconcerns of increased risk of acute kidney injury requiring renal re-placement therapy,60–62 as well as mortality60,62 based on recentrandomized controlled trials in critically ill patients. Given that muchof the evidence in this study, as well as other meta-analyses, are basedupon the use of HES as the bolus fluid administered for GDFT, theimpact of GDFT using gelatin (or other colloid)-based fluid may differfrom current evidence. Further literature63 has examined the role ofbalanced crystalloid (Hartmann solution) versus colloid (6% HES) asthe bolus agent for GDFT, demonstrating no clinical benefit fromcolloid in terms of morbidity or coagulopathy. Only 2 of the studiesincluded in this meta-analysis30,47 administered crystalloid as the bolusagent. Crystalloids may be increasingly utilized in future studiesregarding GDFT due to suggested therapeutic equivalence of colloidand crystalloid in combination with concerns with regard to someforms of colloid.
An updated meta-analysis on perioperative administration offluids, with or without inotropes/vasoactive drugs, targeted to increaseblood flow (relative to control) against measured goals in patientsundergoing abdominal and extra-abdominal surgery, including emer-gency procedures showed that patients randomized to a hemodynamictherapy algorithm, had fewer complications and shorter LOS thancontrols.64 Nevertheless, the findings of the present meta-analysis forpatients managed within ERAS pathways are in agreement with aprevious meta-analysis of 6 trials of 691 patients undergoing electivecolorectal surgery in which it was shown that TED-guided GDFT didnot influence LOS or complications.65
However, although the benefits of GDFT on clinical outcomesmay be marginal, the presence of an important benefit such as costsavings cannot be ruled out on the basis of this meta-analysis. Furtherlarge-scale randomized trials addressing all the issues that we havehighlighted, including a cost-effectiveness analysis, are necessarybefore the real impact of GDFT in elective abdominal surgery is known.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis has shown that the benefits of GDFT maynot be as clear as has been suggested historically. The overall peri-operative management of patients has changed during the period ofinclusion of studies in this meta-analysis, including decreasingexpected hospital LOS, overall decreasing volumes of intraoperativefluid infusion, avoidance of postoperative salt and water overload, andintroduction and compliance with ERAS programs. Despite the NICEGuidance12 which recommends that GDFT technology should be used‘‘in patients undergoing major or high-risk surgery,’’ this studysuggests that GDFT may not be of use to all elective patients under-going major abdominal surgery. The benefit conveyed by GDFT isparticularly attenuated by its combination with ERAS pathways thatare being increasingly implemented internationally. GDFT may bemore of use in the intraoperative care of high-risk patients; however, asyet, there are no definitive data to support this belief.
REFERENCES1. Giglio MT, Marucci M, Testini M, et al. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy
and gastrointestinal complications in major surgery: a meta-analysis ofrandomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:637–646.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
2. Holland J, Carey M, Hughes N, et al. Intraoperative splanchnic hypoperfusion,increased intestinal permeability, down-regulation of monocyte class II majorhistocompatibility complex expression, exaggerated acute phase response, andsepsis. Am J Surg. 2005;190:393–400.
3. Filsoufi F, Rahmanian PB, Castillo JG, et al. Predictors and outcome ofgastrointestinal complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. AnnSurg. 2007;246:323–329.
4. Bennett-Guerrero E, Welsby I, Dunn TJ, et al. The use of a postoperativemorbidity survey to evaluate patients with prolonged hospitalization afterroutine, moderate-risk, elective surgery. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:514–519.
5. Funk DJ, Moretti EW, Gan TJ. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitoringin the perioperative setting. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:887–897.
6. Noblett SE, Snowden CP, Shenton BK, et al. Randomized clinical trialassessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcomeafter elective colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1069–1076.
7. Gan TJ, Soppitt A, Maroof M, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative fluidadministration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesi-ology. 2002;97:820–826.
8. Abbas SM, Hill AG. Systematic review of the literature for the use ofoesophageal Doppler monitor for fluid replacement in major abdominalsurgery. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:44–51.
9. Harten J, Crozier JE, McCreath B, et al. Effect of intraoperative fluidoptimisation on renal function in patients undergoing emergency abdominalsurgery: a randomised controlled pilot study (ISRCTN 11799696). Int J Surg.2008;6:197–204.
10. Pearse R, Dawson D, Fawcett J, et al. Early goal-directed therapy aftermajor surgery reduces complications and duration of hospital stay. Arandomised, controlled trial (ISRCTN38797445). Crit Care. 2005;9:R687–R693.
11. Senagore AJ, Emery T, Luchtefeld M, et al. Fluid management forlaparoscopic colectomy: a prospective, randomized assessment ofgoal-directed administration of balanced salt solution or hetastarchcoupled with an enhanced recovery program. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1935–1940.
12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. CardioQ-ODM Oeso-phageal Doppler Monitor. London: National Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence; 2011. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance(mtg3/resources/guidance-cardioqodm-oesophageal-doppler-monitor.pdf. AccessedDecember 12, 2014.
13. Lobo DN, Bostock KA, Neal KR, et al. Effect of salt and water balance onrecovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: arandomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1812–1818.
14. Brandstrup B, Tonnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R, et al. Effects of intravenousfluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioper-ative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. AnnSurg. 2003;238:641–648.
15. Nisanevich V, Felsenstein I, Almogy G, et al. Effect of intraoperative fluidmanagement on outcome after intraabdominal surgery. Anesthesiology.2005;103:25–32.
16. Varadhan KK, Lobo DN. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials ofintravenous fluid therapy in major elective open abdominal surgery: gettingthe balance right. Proc Nutr Soc. 2010;69:488–498.
17. Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M, et al. Enhanced recovery aftersurgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonicresection. Clin Nutr. 2005;24:466–477.
18. Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, et al. Consensus review of optimal perioperativecare in colorectal surgery: enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Grouprecommendations. Arch Surg. 2009;144:961–969.
19. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CH, et al. The enhanced recovery aftersurgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open color-ectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr.2010;29:434–440.
20. Srinivasa S, Taylor MH, Sammour T, et al. Oesophageal Doppler-guided fluidadministration in colorectal surgery: critical appraisal of published clinicaltrials. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55:4–13.
21. Phan TD, D’Souza B, Rattray MJ, et al. A randomised controlled trial of fluidrestriction compared to oesophageal Doppler-guided goal-directed fluidtherapy in elective major colorectal surgery within an Enhanced RecoveryAfter Surgery program. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014;42:752–760.
22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematicreviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–341.
23. Mayer J, Boldt J, Mengistu AM, et al. Goal-directed intraoperative therapybased on autocalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis reduces hospital
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.annalsofsurgery.com | 475
Rollins and Lobo Annals of Surgery � Volume 263, Number 3, March 2016
stay in high-risk surgical patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care.2010;14:R18.
24. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance fromthe median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol.2005;5:13.
25. Review Manager (Version, 5.3). Oxford, UK: Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
26. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. StatMed. 2002;21:1539–1558.
27. GRADEpro. Version 3.6 for Windows. 2015. Available at: http://tech.cochrane.org/revman/other-resources/gradepro/download. Accessed April 2, 2015.
28. Pestana D, Espinosa E, Eden A, et al. Perioperative goal-directed hemody-namic optimization using noninvasive cardiac output monitoring in majorabdominal surgery: a prospective, randomized, multicenter, pragmatic trial:-POEMAS Study (PeriOperative goal-directed thErapy in Major AbdominalSurgery). Anesth Analg. 2014;119:579–587.
29. Zeng K, Li Y, Liang M, et al. The influence of goal-directed fluid therapy onthe prognosis of elderly patients with hypertension and gastric cancer surgery.Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014;8:2113–2119.
30. Zheng H, Guo H, Ye JR, et al. Goal-directed fluid therapy in gastrointestinalsurgery in older coronary heart disease patients: randomized trial. World JSurg. 2013;37:2820–2829.
31. Salzwedel C, Puig J, Carstens A, et al. Perioperative goal-directed hemody-namic therapy based on radial arterial pulse pressure variation and continuouscardiac index trending reduces postoperative complications after majorabdominal surgery: a multi-center, prospective, randomized study. Crit Care.2013;17:R191.
32. Scheeren TW, Wiesenack C, Gerlach H, et al. Goal-directed intraoperativefluid therapy guided by stroke volume and its variation in high-risk surgicalpatients: a prospective randomized multicentre study. J Clin Monit Comput.2013;27:225–233.
33. Ramsingh DS, Sanghvi C, Gamboa J, et al. Outcome impact of goal directedfluid therapy during high risk abdominal surgery in low to moderate riskpatients: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Monit Comput. 2013;27:249–257.
34. Bundgaard-Nielsen M, Jans O, Muller RG, et al. Does goal-directed fluidtherapy affect postoperative orthostatic intolerance? A randomized trial.Anesthesiology. 2013;119:813–823.
35. McKenny M, Conroy P, Wong A, et al. A randomised prospective trial of intra-operative oesophageal Doppler-guided fluid administration in major gynae-cological surgery. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:1224–1231.
36. Srinivasa S, Taylor MH, Singh PP, et al. Randomized clinical trial of goal-directed fluid therapy within an enhanced recovery protocol for electivecolectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100:66–74.
37. Brandstrup B, Svendsen PE, Rasmussen M, et al. Which goal for fluidtherapy during colorectal surgery is followed by the best outcome: near-maximal stroke volume or zero fluid balance? Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:191–199.
38. Zakhaleva J, Tam J, Denoya PI, Bishawi M, et al. The impact of intravenousfluid administration on complication rates in bowel surgery within anenhanced recovery protocol: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis.2013;15:892–899.
39. Challand C, Struthers R, Sneyd JR, et al. Randomized controlled trial ofintraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in aerobically fit and unfit patientshaving major colorectal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:53–62.
40. Pillai P, McEleavy I, Gaughan M, et al. A double-blind randomized controlledclinical trial to assess the effect of Doppler optimized intraoperative fluidmanagement on outcome following radical cystectomy. J Urol.2011;186:2201–2206.
41. Forget P, Lois F, de Kock M. Goal-directed fluid management based on thepulse oximeter-derived pleth variability index reduces lactate levels andimproves fluid management. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:910–914.
42. Benes J, Chytra I, Altmann P, et al. Intraoperative fluid optimization usingstroke volume variation in high risk surgical patients: results of prospectiverandomized study. Crit Care. 2010;14:R118.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluw
476 | www.annalsofsurgery.com
43. Buettner M, Schummer W, Huettemann E, et al. Influence of systolic-pressure-variation-guided intraoperative fluid management on organ functionand oxygen transport. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:194–199.
44. Lopes MR, Oliveira MA, Pereira VO, et al. Goal-directed fluid managementbased on pulse pressure variation monitoring during high-risk surgery: a pilotrandomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2007;11:R100.
45. Wakeling HG, McFall MR, Jenkins CS, et al. Intraoperative oesophagealDoppler guided fluid management shortens postoperative hospital stay aftermajor bowel surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95:634–642.
46. Conway DH, Mayall R, Abdul-Latif MS, et al. Randomised controlled trialinvestigating the influence of intravenous fluid titration using oesophagealDoppler monitoring during bowel surgery. Anaesthesia. 2002;57:845–849.
47. Bonazzi M, Gentile F, Biasi GM, et al. Impact of perioperative haemodynamicmonitoring on cardiac morbidity after major vascular surgery in low riskpatients. A randomised pilot trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002;23:445–451.
48. Miller TE, Thacker JK, White WD, et al. Reduced length of hospital stay incolorectal surgery after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol.Anesth Analg. 2014;118:1052–1061.
49. Nicholson A, Lowe MC, Parker J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysisof enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients. Br J Surg. 2014;101:172–188.
50. Lee L, Mata J, Ghitulescu GA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recoveryversus conventional perioperative management for colorectal surgery. AnnSurg. 2014.
51. Bellamy MC. Wet, dry or something else? Br J Anaesth. 2006;97:755–757.
52. Doherty M, Buggy DJ. Intraoperative fluids: how much is too much? BrJ Anaesth. 2012;109:69–79.
53. Awad S, Allison SP, Lobo DN. The history of 0.9% saline. Clin Nutr.2008;27:179–188.
54. Chowdhury AH, Cox EF, Francis ST, et al. A randomized, controlled, double-blind crossover study on the effects of 2-L infusions of 0.9% saline andplasma-lyte(R) 148 on renal blood flow velocity and renal cortical tissueperfusion in healthy volunteers. Ann Surg. 2012;256:18–24.
55. Lobo DN, Awad S. Should chloride-rich crystalloids remain the mainstay offluid resuscitation to prevent ‘‘pre-renal’’ acute kidney injury? Kidney Int.2014;86:1096–1105.
56. Krajewski ML, Raghunathan K, Paluszkiewicz SM, et al. Meta-analysis ofhigh- versus low-chloride content in perioperative and critical care fluidresuscitation. Br J Surg. 2015;102:24–36.
57. Cakir H, van Stijn MF, Lopes Cardozo AM, et al. Adherence to enhancedrecovery after surgery and length of stay after colonic resection. ColorectalDis. 2013;15:1019–1025.
58. Alcantara-Moral M, Serra-Aracil X, et al. Observational cross-sectional studyof compliance with the fast track protocol in elective surgery for colon cancerin Spain. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:477–483.
59. Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, et al., Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryStudy Group. Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol andoutcomes after colorectal cancer. Arch Surg. 2011;146:571–577.
60. Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and penta-starch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:125–139.
61. Myburgh JA, Finfer S, Bellomo R, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluidresuscitation in intensive care. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1901–1911.
62. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130(0.42versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:124–134.
63. Yates DR, Davies SJ, Milner HE, et al. Crystalloid or colloid for goal-directedfluid therapy in colorectal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:281–289.
64. Pearse RM, Harrison DA, MacDonald N, et al. Effect of a perioperative,cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes follow-ing major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematicreview. JAMA. 2014;311:2181–2190.
65. Srinivasa S, Lemanu DP, Singh PP, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysisof oesophageal Doppler-guided fluid management in colorectal surgery. BrJ Surg. 2013;100:1701–1708.
er Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
� 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.