Objectives To determine whether preoperative optimisation of oxygen delivery improves outcome after major elective surgery, and to determine whether the inotropes, adrenaline and dopexamine, used to enhance oxygen delivery influence outcome. Design Randomised controlled trial with double blinding between inotrope groups. Setting York District Hospital, England. Subjects 138 patients undergoing major elective surgery who were at risk of developing postoperative complications either because of the surgery or the presence of coexistent medical conditions. Interventions Patients were randomised into three groups. Two groups received invasive haemodynamic monitoring, fluid, and either adrenaline or dopexamine to increase oxygen delivery. Inotropic support was continued during surgery and for at least 12 hours afterwards. The third group (control) received routine perioperative care. Main outcome measures Hospital mortality and morbidity. Results Overall, 3/92 (3%) preoptimised patients died compared with 8/46 controls (17%) (P = 0.007). There were no differences in mortality between the treatment groups, but 14/46 (30%) patients in the dopexamine group developed complications compared with 24/46 (52%) patients in the adrenaline group (difference 22%, 95% confidence interval 2% to 41%) and 28 patients (61%) in the control group (31%, 11% to 50%). The use of dopexamine was associated with a decreased length of stay in hospital. Conclusion Routine preoperative optimisation of patients undergoing major elective surgery would be a significant and cost effective improvement in perioperative care.
IntroductionGoal-directed therapy (GDT) has been shown to improve outcome when commenced before surgery. This requires pre-operative admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). In cardiac surgery, GDT has proved effective when commenced after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of post-operative GDT on the incidence of complications and duration of hospital stay in patients undergoing general surgery.MethodsThis was a randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation. High-risk general surgical patients were allocated to post-operative GDT to attain an oxygen delivery index of 600 ml min-1 m-2 or to conventional management. Cardiac output was measured by lithium indicator dilution and pulse power analysis. Patients were followed up for 60 days.ResultsSixty-two patients were randomised to GDT and 60 patients to control treatment. The GDT group received more intravenous colloid (1,907 SD ± 878 ml versus 1,204 SD ± 898 ml; p < 0.0001) and dopexamine (55 patients (89%) versus 1 patient (2%); p < 0.0001). Fewer GDT patients developed complications (27 patients (44%) versus 41 patients (68%); p = 0.003, relative risk 0.63; 95% confidence intervals 0.46 to 0.87). The number of complications per patient was also reduced (0.7 SD ± 0.9 per patient versus 1.5 SD ± 1.5 per patient; p = 0.002). The median duration of hospital stay in the GDT group was significantly reduced (11 days (IQR 7 to 15) versus 14 days (IQR 11 to 27); p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in mortality (seven patients (11.3%) versus nine patients (15%); p = 0.59).ConclusionPost-operative GDT is associated with reductions in post-operative complications and duration of hospital stay. The beneficial effects of GDT may be achieved while avoiding the difficulties of pre-operative ICU admission.
Introduction Despite recent interest in measurement of central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO 2 ), there are no published data describing the pattern of ScvO 2 changes after major general surgery or any relationship with outcome.
BackgroundIntermittent measurement of cardiac output may be performed using a lithium dilution technique (LiDCO). This can then be used to calibrate a pulse power algorithm of the arterial waveform which provides a continuous estimate of this variable. The purpose of this study was to examine the duration of accuracy of the pulse power algorithm in critically ill patients with respect to time when compared to measurements of cardiac output by an independent technique.MethodsPulse power analysis was performed on critically ill patients using a proprietary commercial monitor (PulseCO). All measurements were made using an in-dwelling radial artery line and according to manufacturers instructions. Intermittent measurements of cardiac output were made with LiDCO in order to validate the pulse power measurements. These were made at baseline and then following 1, 2, 4 and 8 hours. The LiDCO measurement was considered the reference for comparison in this study. The two methods of measuring cardiac output were then compared by linear regression and a Bland Altman analysis. An error rate for the limits of agreement (LOA) between the two techniques of less than 30% was defined as being acceptable for this study.Results14 critically ill medical and surgical patients were enrolled over a three month period. At baseline patients showed a wide range of cardiac output (median 7.5 L/min, IQR 5.1 -9.0 L/min). The bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques was deemed acceptable for the first four hours of the study with percentage errors being 29%, 22%, and 285 respectively. The percentage error at eight hours following calibration increased to 36%. The ability of the PulseCo to detect changes in cardiac output was assessed with a similar analysis. The PulseCO tracked the changes in cardiac output with adequate accuracy for the first four hours with percentage errors being 20%, 24% and 25%. However at eight hours the error had increased to 43%.ConclusionThe agreement between lithium dilution cardiac output and the pulse power algorithm in the PulseCO monitor remains acceptable for up to four hours in critically ill patients.
Background: Studies suggest that Goal Directed Therapy (GDT) results in improved outcome following major surgery. However, there is concern that pre-emptive use of inotropic therapy may lead to an increased incidence of myocardial ischaemia and infarction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.