Perioperative goal-directed therapy: A systematic review without meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative goal-directed therapy aims to optimise haemodynamics by titrating fluids, vasopressors and/or inotropes to predefined haemodynamic targets. Perioperative goal-directed therapy is a complex intervention composed of several independent component interventions. Trials on perioperative goal-directed therapy show conflicting results. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of perioperative goal-directed therapy. METHODS: PubMED, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched. Trials were included if they had a perioperative goal-directed therapy protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The first secondary outcome was serious adverse events excluding mortality. Risk of bias was assessed, and GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve randomised trials were included of which one trial (1%) had low risk of bias. Included trials varied in patients: types of surgery which was expected due to inclusion criteria; in intervention and comparison: timing of intervention, monitoring devices, haemodynamic variables, target values, use of fluids, vasopressors and/or inotropes as well as combinations of these within protocols; and in outcome: mortality was reported in 87 trials (78%). Due to substantial clinical heterogeneity also within the various types of surgery a meta-analysis of data, including subgroup analyses, as defined in our protocol was considered inappropriate. CONCLUSION: Clinical heterogeneity in patients, interventions and outcomes in perioperative goal-directed therapy trials is too large to perform meta-analysis on all trials. Future trials and meta-analyses highly depend on universally agreed definitions on aspects beyond type of surgery of the complex intervention and its evaluation.

Minimally invasive cardiac output technologies in the ICU: putting it all together.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Haemodynamic monitoring is a cornerstone in the diagnosis and evaluation of treatment in critically ill patients in circulatory distress. The interest in using minimally invasive cardiac output monitors is growing. The purpose of this review is to discuss the currently available devices to provide an overview of their validation studies in order to answer the question whether these devices are ready for implementation in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Current evidence shows that minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring devices are not yet interchangeable with (trans)pulmonary thermodilution in measuring cardiac output. However, validation studies are generally single centre, are based on small sample sizes in heterogeneous groups, and differ in the statistical methods used. SUMMARY: Minimally and noninvasive monitoring devices may not be sufficiently accurate to replace (trans)pulmonary thermodilution in estimating cardiac output. The current paradigm shift to explore trending ability rather than investigating agreement of absolute values alone is to be applauded. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of these devices in the context of (functional) haemodynamic monitoring before adoption into clinical practice can be recommended.

Disagreement in cardiac output measurements between fourth-generation FloTrac and critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (COAP) and critical care ultrasonography (COCCUS). The strength of linear correlation of both methods was determined by the Pearson coefficient. Bland-Altman plot and four-quadrant plot were used to track agreement and trending ability. RESULT: Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. COAP and COCCUS had strong positive linear correlation (r 2 = 0.60, p < 0.001). Bias of COAP and COCCUS was 0.2 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.2 to 0.6) with limits of agreement of - 3.6 L min-1 (95% CI - 4.3 to - 2.9) to 4.0 L min-1 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7). The percentage error was 65.6% (95% CI 53.2 to 77.3). Concordance rate was 64.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016.