...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Anesthesiology >Pleth variability index versus pulse pressure variation for intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial
【24h】

Pleth variability index versus pulse pressure variation for intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

机译:低至中度风险腹部手术患者术中目标导向流体治疗的血脂变异性指数与脉压变化的关系:一项随机对照试验

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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. 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. 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. 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908256 , September 2016, retrospectively registered.
机译:研究表明,基于液体反应性动态指标的目标定向液体疗法(GDFT)可以减少接受大腹部手术的患者的术后并发症和住院时间(LOS)。在低至中度风险的腹部手术中,仍然需要弄清楚这种方法的有效性。脉冲压力变化(PPV)和体积变化指数(PVI)均可用于指导GDFT策略。这项前瞻性随机对照试验的目的是确定与PPV指导的GDFT相比,PVI指导的GDFT的使用是否会在接受中低风险手术的患者中导致类似的医院LOS。次要结果包括输液量和术后并发症发生率。将患者随机分为PVI或PPV指导的GDFT组。两者均接受了基线2?ml?kg ?? 1?h ?? 1乳酸林格氏液输注。如果PVI≥15%或PPV≥13%至少持续5分钟,则在10分钟内注入250?mL胶体液作为补充液。主要结果是确定两组之间的医院LOS是否相等(医院LOS是指从手术到医生批准出院之日的天数)。总共包括76名患者,他们被随机分为两组,每组38名患者。两组的基线特征相似。 PVI和PPV指导的GDFT策略在LOS(中位[四分位数间距])(天)的主要结局方面均等价,分别为2.5 [2.0-3.3]和3.0 [2.0-5.0],p?=?0.230。两组之间输液,术后并发症和所有其他结局无差异。在接受低至中度风险腹部手术的患者中,就医院LOS,输液量和术后并发症发生率而言,PVI似乎对PPFT的指导与PPV相似。但是,在接受这些外科手术的低风险患者中,优化卒中量可能对预后影响有限。 ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT02908256,2016年9月,已追溯注册。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号