RESUMO
Prudent intraoperative fluid replacement therapy, inotropes, and vasoactive drugs should be guided by adequate hemodynamic monitoring. The study aimed to evaluate the single-centre practice on intraoperative fluid therapy in abdominal surgery (AS). The evaluation, based on a review of medical files, included 235 patients (103 men), aged 60 ± 15 years who underwent AS between September and November 2017. Fluid therapy was analyzed in terms of quality and quantity. There were 124 high-risk patients according to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Classification (ASA Class 3+) and 89 high-risk procedures performed. The median duration of procedures was 175 (IQR 106-284) min. Eleven patients died post-operatively. The median fluids volume was 10.4 mL/kg/h of anaesthesia, including 9.1 mL/kg/h of crystalloids and 2.7 mL/kg/h of synthetic colloids. Patients undergoing longer than the median procedures received significantly fewer fluids than those who underwent shorter procedures. The volume of fluids in the longer procedures depended on the procedural risk classification and was significantly greater in high-risk patients undergoing high-risk surgery. Patients who died received significantly more fluids than survivors. In all patients, a non-invasive blood pressure monitoring was used and only six patients had therapy guided by metabolic equilibrium. The fluid therapy used was liberal but complied with the recommendations regarding the type of fluid and risk-adjusted dosing. Hemodynamic monitoring was suboptimal and requires modifications. In conclusion, the optimization of intraoperative fluid therapy requires a balanced and standardized approach consistent with treatment procedures.
Assuntos
Coloides , Hidratação , Idoso , Pressão Sanguínea , Soluções Cristaloides , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: There are several scores used for in-hospital mortality prediction in critical illness. Their application in a local scenario requires validation to ensure appropriate diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, their use in assessing post-discharge mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors has not been extensively studied. We aimed to validate APACHE II, APACHE III and SAPS II scores in short- and long-term mortality prediction in a mixed adult ICU in Poland. APACHE II, APACHE III and SAPS II scores, with corresponding predicted mortality ratios, were calculated for 303 consecutive patients admitted to a 10-bed ICU in 2016. Short-term (in-hospital) and long-term (12-month post-discharge) mortality was assessed. RESULTS: Median APACHE II, APACHE III and SAPS II scores were 19 (IQR 12-24), 67 (36.5-88) and 44 (27-56) points, with corresponding in-hospital mortality ratios of 25.8% (IQR 12.1-46.0), 18.5% (IQR 3.8-41.8) and 34.8% (IQR 7.9-59.8). Observed in-hospital mortality was 35.6%. Moreover, 12-month post-discharge mortality reached 17.4%. All the scores predicted in-hospital mortality (p < 0.05): APACHE II (AUC = 0.78; 95%CI 0.73-0.83), APACHE III (AUC = 0.79; 95%CI 0.74-0.84) and SAPS II (AUC = 0.79; 95%CI 0.74-0.84); as well as mortality after hospital discharge (p < 0.05): APACHE II (AUC = 0.71; 95%CI 0.64-0.78), APACHE III (AUC = 0.72; 95%CI 0.65-0.78) and SAPS II (AUC = 0.69; 95%CI 0.62-0.76), with no statistically significant difference between the scores (p > 0.05). The calibration of the scores was good. CONCLUSIONS: All the scores are acceptable predictors of in-hospital mortality. In the case of post-discharge mortality, their diagnostic accuracy is lower and of borderline clinical relevance. Further studies are needed to create scores estimating the long-term prognosis of subjects successfully discharged from the ICU.