Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Impact of the FloTrac/VigileoTM Monitoring on Intraoperative Fluid Management and Outcome after Liver Resection.
Giustiniano, Enrico; Procopio, Fabio; Ruggieri, Nadia; Grimaldi, Stefania; Torzilli, Guido; Raimondi, Ferdinando.
Afiliação
  • Giustiniano E; Humanitas Research Hospital-Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Milan, Italy.
  • Procopio F; Humanitas Research Hospital-Department of Hepatobiliary and General Surgery, Milan, Italy.
  • Ruggieri N; Humanitas Research Hospital-Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Milan, Italy.
  • Grimaldi S; Humanitas Research Hospital-Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Milan, Italy.
  • Torzilli G; Humanitas Research Hospital-Department of Hepatobiliary and General Surgery, Milan, Italy.
  • Raimondi F; Humanitas Research Hospital-Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Milan, Italy.
Dig Surg ; 35(5): 435-441, 2018.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29073613
BACKGROUNDS: Perioperative fluid-therapy is a still a debated issue. In hepatic surgery, volume load must be strictly monitored to assure both a safe hemodynamics and low central venous pressure (CVP) to limit the backflow bleeding. Retrospectively, we compared intraoperative fluid management before and after the adoption of a semi-invasive hemodynamic monitoring. METHODS: We compared patients submitted to liver resection monitored by FloTrac/VigileoTM (group A) vs. patients who did not (group B). We searched for differences about hemodynamics, fluid therapy and outcome. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients underwent hepatic resection due to neoplasm: group A - n = 179 and group B - n = 176. At the end of the resection, patients of group A showed a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) than group B (74 ± 12 vs. 49.4 ± 8 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.001). Cardiac index and stroke volume variation in group A were within a normal range. Fluid input was higher in group B than in group A (12.0 ± 3.4 vs. 7.6 ± 3.1 mL/kg/h, respectively; p < 0.001) and fluid balance was significantly different: group A -400 ± 1,527 vs. group B 326 ± 1,527 mL (p < 0.001). Group B showed a greater number of cases complicated outcomes (36 vs. 20; p = 0.014). Considering only those subjects who were able to reach their hemodynamic targets (MAP ≥65 mm Hg and CVP ≤7 mm Hg), we found similar data. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received a monitored fluid therapy experienced a safer outcome.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Monitorização Intraoperatória / Hidratação / Hemodinâmica / Hepatectomia / Cuidados Intraoperatórios / Neoplasias Hepáticas Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Monitorização Intraoperatória / Hidratação / Hemodinâmica / Hepatectomia / Cuidados Intraoperatórios / Neoplasias Hepáticas Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article