• Alexandre Joosten, Reda Hafiane, Marco Pustetto, Luc Van Obbergh, Thierry Quackels, Alexis Buggenhout, Jean-Louis Vincent, Brigitte Ickx, and Joseph Rinehart.
• Department of Anesthesiology, CUB Erasme, Hopital ERASME, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 808, route de Lennik, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. Alexandre.Joosten@erasme.ulb.ac.be.
• J Clin Monit Comput. 2019 Feb 1; 33 (1): 15-24.

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to assess the effects of using a real time clinical decision-support system, "Assisted Fluid Management" (AFM), to guide goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) during major abdominal surgery. We compared a group of patients managed using the AFM system with a historical cohort of patients (control group) who had been managed using a manual GDFT strategy. Adherence to the protocol was defined as the relative intraoperative time spent with a stroke volume variation (SVV) < 13%. We hypothesised that patients in the AFM group would have more time during surgery with a SVV < 13% compared to the control group. All patients had a radial arterial line connected to a pulse contour analysis monitor and received a 2 ml/kg/h maintenance crystalloid infusion. Additional 250 ml crystalloid boluses were administered whenever measured SVV ≥ 13% in the control group, and when the software suggested a fluid bolus in the AFM group. We compared 46 AFM-guided patients to 38 controls. Patients in the AFM group spent significantly more time during surgery with a SVV < 13% compared to the control group (median 92% [82, 96] vs. 76% [54, 86]; P < 0.0005), and received less fluid overall (1775 ml [1225, 2425] vs. 2350 ml [1825, 3250]; P = 0.010). The incidence of postoperative complications was comparable in the two groups. Implementation of a decision support system for GDFT guidance resulted in a significantly longer period during surgery with a SVV < 13% with a reduced total amount of fluid administered. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov (NCT03141411).

32 keywords...

hide…