519 PERIOPERATIVE FLUID MANAGEMENT IN ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CANCER AND ITS RELATION TO POSTOPERATIVE RESPIRATORY COMPLICATIONS

Abstract

Abstract The optimal perioperative fluid management during esophagectomy is still not clear. Liberal regimens have been associated with higher morbidity and respiratory complications. Restrictive regimens might raise concerns for kidney function and increase the need to associate vasopressors. Recently, perioperative care is changing towards goal-directed fluid regimens as part of early recovery programs. The aim of this study was to investigate retrospectively the perioperative fluid administration during esophagectomy and to correlate this with postoperative respiratory outcome. Methods All patients who underwent esophagectomy between January–December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics, type of surgery and postoperative course were reviewed. Fluid administration and vasopressor use were calculated intra-operatively and during the postoperative stay at the recovery room. Fluid overload was defined as a positive fluid balance of more than 125 mL/m2/h during the first 24 hours. Patients were divided in 3 groups: GRP0 (no fluid overload/no vasopressors); GRP1 (need for vasopressors); GRP2 (fluid overload with/without vasopressors). Postoperative complications were prospectively recorded according to Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group criteria. Multivariable analysis (binary logistic regression) for “any respiratory complication” was performed. Results 103 patients were analyzed: 35 (34%) GRP0, 50 (49%) GRP1 and 18 (17%) GRP2. No significant differences were found for age, treatment (neoadjuvant vs. primary), type of surgery (Open/MIE), histology and comorbidities. There were significant (p ≤ 0.001) differences in fluid balance/m2/h (75 ± 21 mL; 86 ± 22 mL and 144 ± 20 mL) across GRP0, GRP1 and GRP2 respectively. We found differences in respiratory complications GRP0 (20%) versus GRP1 (42%;p = 0.034) and GRP0 (20%) versus GRP2 (61%;p = 0.002)) and “Comprehensive Complications Index” GRP0 (20.5) versus GRP1 (34.6;p = 0.015) and GRP0 (20.5) versus GRP2 (35.1;p = 0.009). Multivariable analysis for any respiratory complication is presented in FIGURE 1. Conclusion Among patients undergoing esophagectomy, there is a wide variety in the administration of fluid during the first 24 hours. There was a higher incidence of respiratory complications if patients received higher amounts of fluid or if vasopressors were used. Type of surgery (open versus MIE) did not impact respiratory outcome. We believe that a personalized and protocolized fluid administration algorithm should be implemented and that individual risk factors for patients at risk should be identified.