Revisión crítica de las recomendaciones sobre fluidoterapia perioperatoria y monitorización hemodinámica de Recuperación intensificada en cirugía del adulto (RICA): Declaración de posición del Grupo de Trabajo de Fluidoterapia y Monitorización hemodinámica de la Sección de Hemostasia, Medicina transfusional y Fluidoterapia (SHTF) de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR) / A critical review of the Perioperative Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery of the Adult Pathway (RICA): A position statement of the Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR)

En un esfuerzo por estandarizar el manejo perioperatorio y mejorar los resultados posoperatorios de los pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía, el Ministerio de Sanidad, a través del Grupo Español de Rehabilitación Multimodal (GERM) y el Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud, en colaboración con diversas sociedades científicas españolas, y sobre la base de la evidencia disponible, publicó en 2021 la guía Recuperación intensificada en cirugía del adulto (RICA). Dicho documento incluye 12 medidas perioperatorias relacionadas con la fluidoterapia y la monitorización hemodinámica. La administración de fluidos y la monitorización hemodinámica no son sencillas, pero están directamente relacionadas con los resultados de los pacientes. El Subcomité de Fluidoterapia y monitorización hemodinámica de la Sección de Hemostasia, Medicina transfusional y Fluidoterapia (SHTF) de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR) ha analizado dichas recomendaciones, concluyendo que deberían ser revisadas, ya que no siguen la metodología adecuada. (AU)

In an effort to standardize perioperative management and improve postoperative outcomes of adult patients undergoing surgery, the Ministry of Health, through the Spanish Multimodal Rehabilitation Group (GERM), and the Aragonese Institute of Health Sciences, in collaboration with multiple Spanish scientific societies and based on the available evidence, published in 2021 the Spanish Intensified Adult Recovery (RICA) guideline. This document includes 12 perioperative measures related to fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring. Fluid administration and hemodynamic monitoring are not straightforward but are directly related to postoperative patient outcomes. The Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR) has reviewed these recommendations and concluded that they should be revised as they do not follow an adequate methodology. (AU)

A critical review of the perioperative fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery of the Adult Pathway (RICA): A position statement of the fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR).

In an effort to standardize perioperative management and improve postoperative outcomes of adult patients undergoing surgery, the Ministry of Health, through the Spanish Multimodal Rehabilitation Group (GERM), and the Aragonese Institute of Health Sciences, in collaboration with multiple Spanish scientific societies and based on the available evidence, published in 2021 the Spanish Intensified Adult Recovery (RICA) guideline. This document includes 12 perioperative measures related to fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring. Fluid administration and hemodynamic monitoring are not straightforward but are directly related to postoperative patient outcomes. The Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR) has reviewed these recommendations and concluded that they should be revised as they do not follow an adequate methodology.

Prueba de volumen en el quirófano: subestudio planificado del estudio observacional Fluid Day / Fluid challenges in operating room: A planned sub study of the Fluid Day observational study

Antecedentes: La administración intraoperatoria de fluidos es una intervención ubicua en los pacientes quirúrgicos. Pero la administración inadecuada de fluidos puede llevar a malos resultados postoperatorios. La prueba de volumen (PV), dentro o fuera de la denominada fluidoterapia guiada por objetivos, permite probar el sistema cardiovascular y la necesidad de administración adicional de fluidos. Nuestro objetivo primario fue evaluar el modo en que el anestesiólogo realiza la PV en el quirófano en términos de tipo, volumen, variables utilizadas para impulsar la PV, y comparar la proporción de pacientes que recibieron administración adicional de fluidos basada en la respuesta a la PV. Métodos: Se trata de un subestudio planificado de un estudio observacional realizado en 131 centros en España, en pacientes sometidos a cirugía. Resultados: En el estudio se incluyeron y analizaron 396 pacientes. La cantidad media [rango intercuartílico] de fluidos administrados durante la PV fue de 250ml (200-400). La principal indicación de la PV fue el descenso de la presión arterial sistólica en 246 casos (62,2%). La segunda indicación fue el descenso de la presión arterial media (54,4%). Se utilizó el gasto cardiaco en 30 pacientes (7,58%), y la variación del volumen sistólico en 29 de entre 385 casos (7,32%). La respuesta a la PV inicial no tuvo impacto a la hora de prescribir administración adicional de fluidos. Conclusiones: La indicación y la evaluación actuales de la PV en los pacientes quirúrgicos son altamente variables. La predicción de la receptividad a los fluidos no se utiliza rutinariamente, evaluándose a menudo las variables no adecuadas para valorar la respuesta hemodinámica a la PV, pudiendo causar efectos perjudiciales.(AU)

Background: Intraoperative fluid administration is a ubiquitous intervention in surgical patients. But inadequate fluid administration may lead to poor postoperative outcomes. Fluid challenges (FCs), in or outside the so-called goal-directed fluid therapy, allows testing the cardiovascular system and the need for further fluid administration. Our primary aim was to evaluate how anesthesiologists conduct FCs in the operating room in terms of type, volume, variables used to trigger a FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. Methods: This was a planned substudy of an observational study conducted in 131 centers in Spain in patients undergoing surgery. Results: A total of 396 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during a FC was 250mL (200-400). The main indication for FC was a decrease in systolic arterial pressure in 246 cases (62.2%). The second was a decrease in mean arterial pressure (54.4%). Cardiac output was used in 30 patients (7.58%), while stroke volume variation in 29 of 385 cases (7.32%). The response to the initial FC did not have an impact when prescribing further fluid administration. Conclusions: The current indication and evaluation of FC in surgical patients is highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not routinely used, and inappropriate variables are frequently evaluated for assessing the hemodynamic response to FC, which may result in deleterious effects.(AU)

Research priorities in perioperative fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring: A Delphi Consensus Survey from the Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR).

BACKGROUND: Research in fluid therapy and perioperative hemodynamic monitoring is difficult and expensive. The objectives of this study were to summarize these topics and to prioritize these topics in order of research importance. METHODS: Electronic structured Delphi questionnaire over three rounds among 30 experts in fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring identified through the Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care. RESULTS: 77 topics were identified and ranked in order of prioritization. Topics were categorized into themes of crystalloids, colloids, hemodynamic monitoring and others. 31 topics were ranked as essential research priority. To determine whether intraoperative hemodynamic optimization algorithms based on the invasive or noninvasive Hypotension Prediction Index versus other management strategies could decrease the incidence of postoperative complications. As well as whether the use of renal stress biomarkers together with a goal-directed fluid therapy protocol could reduce hospital stay and the incidence of acute kidney injury in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, reached the highest consensus. CONCLUSIONS: The Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care will use these results to carry out the research.

Fluid challenges in operating room: A planned sub study of the Fluid Day observational study.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative fluid administration is a ubiquitous intervention in surgical patients. But inadequate fluid administration may lead to poor postoperative outcomes. Fluid challenges (FCs), in or outside the so-called goal-directed fluid therapy, allows testing the cardiovascular system and the need for further fluid administration. Our primary aim was to evaluate how anesthesiologists conduct FCs in the operating room in terms of type, volume, variables used to trigger a FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. METHODS: This was a planned substudy of an observational study conducted in 131 centres in Spain in patients undergoing surgery. RESULTS: A total of 396 patients were enrolled and analysed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during a FC was 250ml (200-400). The main indication for FC was a decrease in systolic arterial pressure in 246 cases (62.2%). The second was a decrease in mean arterial pressure (54.4%). Cardiac output was used in 30 patients (7.58%), while stroke volume variation in 29 of 385 cases (7.32%). The response to the initial FC did not have an impact when prescribing further fluid administration. CONCLUSIONS: The current indication and evaluation of FC in surgical patients is highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not routinely used, and inappropriate variables are frequently evaluated for assessing the hemodynamic response to FC, which may result in deleterious effects.

Coloides perioperatorios: de la teoría a la práctica / Perioperative colloids: From theory to practice

Introducción: La administración intravenosa de fluidos constituye un elemento fundamental en la reanimación de pacientes con hipovolemia. Las guías clínicas restringen el uso de coloides en favor de los cristaloides. Actualmente, no conocemos con exactitud cuál es la práctica clínica habitual al respecto durante el periodo perioperatorio. El objetivo del presente estudio es describir el uso perioperatorio de coloides y analizar las posibles causas que motivan su utilización. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional, transversal, multicéntrico. Subanálisis del estudio Fluid Day. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes mayores de 18 años sometidos a cirugía durante las 24h de los 2 días del estudio (18 y 20 de febrero de 2019). Se registraron datos demográficos, comorbilidades, datos referentes al acto anestésico y el procedimiento quirúrgico, fluidos administrados, sangrado perioperatorio y tipo de monitorización utilizado durante el periodo perioperatorio. Resultados: Se analizaron 5.928 casos. Un total de 542 pacientes (9,1%) recibieron algún tipo de coloides, siendo el hidroxietilalmidón el más utilizado (5,1%). Los pacientes que recibieron coloides tuvieron intervenciones más prolongadas (150 [90-255] vs. 75 [45-120] min), fueron intervenidos de urgencia (13,7 vs. 7,5%) y se clasificaron como de alto riesgo (22 vs. 4,8%) más frecuentemente. Su recuperación inmediata mayoritariamente transcurrió en unidades de críticos (45,1 vs.15,8%). Los pacientes que presentaron una hemorragia menor de 500ml recibieron coloides en un 5,9% frente al 45,9% cuando se superó esta cifra. Los pacientes que recibieron coloides presentaban anemia más frecuentemente: 29,4 vs. 16,3%. La administración de coloides supuso un mayor riesgo de transfusión (OR 15,7). La monitorización avanzada también aumentó la probabilidad de administrar coloides (OR 9,43). Conclusiones: En nuestro medio y en condiciones de práctica clínica habitual, la utilización de los coloides es escasa...(AU)

Introduction: Fluid administration is the cornerstone in hypovolemic patient's reanimation. Clinical guidelines restrict colloid administration favouring crystalloids. Currently, we don’t know exactly which is the daily clinical practice during the perioperative period. The objective of this study is to describe perioperative use of colloids analysing possible reasons aiming to use them. Material and Methods: Prospective, cross-section, national, multicentre observational study. Fluid Day sub-study. We enrolled all patient's older than 18 years old who underwent surgery during the 24h of the 2-days study (February, 2019, 18th and 20th). We registered demographic data, comorbidities, anaesthetic and surgical procedure data, fluids administered, perioperative bleeding and monitoring type used during the perioperative period. Results: A total of 5928 cases were analysed and 542 patients (9.1%) received any type of colloids, being hydroxiethyl-starch the most frequently used (5.1%). Patients receiving colloids suffered more longing surgery (150 [90-255] vs. 75 [45-120] min), were urgently operated (13.7 vs. 7.5%) and were more frequent classified as high risk (22 vs. 4.8%). Their recovery was mostly in critical care units (45.1 vs.15.8%). Patients with bleeding less than 500mL received colloids in a percentage of 5.9 versus 45.9% when this figure was overcome. Patients who received colloids were anaemic more frequently: 29.4 vs. 16.3%. Colloids administration had a higher risk for transfusion (OR 15.7). Advanced monitoring also increased the risk for receiving colloids (OR 9.43). Conclusions: In our environment with routine clinical practice, colloids administration is limited and close linked to perioperative bleeding.(AU)

Perioperative colloids: From theory to practice.

INTRODUCTION: Fluid administration is the cornerstone in hypovolemic patient's reanimation. Clinical guidelines restrict colloid administration favouring crystalloids. Currently, we don't know exactly which is the daily clinical practice during the perioperative period. The objective of this study is to describe perioperative use of colloids analysing possible reasons aiming to use them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, cross-section, national, multicentre observational study. Fluid Day sub-study. We enrolled all patient's older than 18 years old who underwent surgery during the 24 h of the 2-days study (February, 2019, 18th and 20th). We registered demographic data, comorbidities, anaesthetic and surgical procedure data, fluids administered, perioperative bleeding and monitoring type used during the perioperative period. RESULTS: A total of 5928 cases were analysed and 542 patients (9.1%) received any type of colloids, being hydroxiethyl-starch the most frequently used (5.1%). Patients receiving colloids suffered more longing surgery (150 [90-255] vs. 75 [45-120] min), were urgently operated (13.7 vs. 7.5%) and were more frequent classified as high risk (22 vs. 4.8%). Their recovery was mostly in critical care units (45.1 vs.15.8%). Patients with bleeding less than 500 ml received colloids in a percentage of 5.9 versus 45.9% when this figure was overcome. Patients who received colloids were anaemic more frequently: 29.4 vs. 16.3%. Colloids administration had a higher risk for transfusion (OR 15.7). Advanced monitoring also increased the risk for receiving colloids (OR 9.43). CONCLUSIONS: In our environment with routine clinical practice, colloids administration is limited and close linked to perioperative bleeding.