Use Of Cardiac Output Monitoring Research Articles

Anesthesia and Critical Care for the Prediction and Prevention for Small-for-size Syndrome: Guidelines from the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS). A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India. It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion. Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Fluid and Hemodynamics.

Several components of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway act to improve and simplify perioperative fluid and hemodynamic therapy. Modern perioperative fluid management has shifted away from the liberal fluid therapy and toward more individualized approaches. Clinical evidence has also emphasized the importance of maintaining adequate mean arterial pressure and avoiding intraoperative hypotension. Goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT), or the use of cardiac output monitoring to guide fluid and vasopressor use, has been shown to reduce complications, but its role within ERAS pathways is likely best-suited to high-risk patients or those undergoing high-risk procedures. This article reviews the mechanisms by which ERAS pathways aid the provider in hemodynamic management, reviews trends, and evidence regarding fluid and hemodynamic therapy approaches, and provides guidance on the practical implementation of these concepts within ERAS pathways.

Cost-effectiveness of a cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy algorithm in high-risk patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery

BackgroundThe use of cardiac output monitoring to guide intra-venous fluid and inotropic therapies may improve peri-operative outcomes, but uncertainty exists regarding clinical effectiveness and robust cost-effectiveness evidence is lacking. The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of peri-operative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy versus usual care in high-risk patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery.MethodsThe study undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multi-centre randomised trial that recruited patients from 17 hospitals in the United Kingdom. The trial compared cardiac output-guided, haemodynamic therapy algorithm for intra-venous fluid and inotrope (dopexamine) infusion during and 6 h following surgery, with usual care. Resource use and outcome data on 734 high-risk trial patients aged over 50 years undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery were used to report cost-effectiveness at 6 months and to project lifetime cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness analysis used information on health-related quality of life (QoL) at randomisation, 30 days, and 6 months combined with information on vital status to report quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Each QALY was valued using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended threshold of willingness to pay (£20,000 per QALY) in conjunction with the costs of each group to report the incremental net monetary benefits (INB) of the treatment algorithm versus usual care.ResultsThe mean [SD] quality of life at 30 days and 6 months was similar between the treatment groups (at 6 months, intervention group 0.73 [0.28] versus usual care group 0.71 [0.30]; mean gain 0.03 [95 % confidence interval (CI) −0.01 to 0.08]). At 6 months, survival, mean QALYs and mean healthcare costs (intervention group £8574 versus usual care group £8974) were also similar. At the cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the incremental net benefit of haemodynamic therapy over the patients’ lifetime was positive (£4168 [95 % CI −£3063 to £11,398]). This corresponds to an 87 % probability that this intervention is cost-effective.ConclusionsCardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy algorithm was associated with an average cost reduction and improvement in QALY and is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to confirm the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this treatment.Trial registrationISRCTN04386758Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13741-015-0024-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Variation in haemodynamic monitoring for major surgery in European nations: secondary analysis of the EuSOS dataset.

BackgroundThe use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe.ResultsIncluded in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III–V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III–V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients).ConclusionsOne in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01203605. Date of registration: 15.09.2010.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13741-015-0018-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The whole truth and nothing but the truth: the need for full reporting of randomised trials.

The use of cardiac output monitoring to guide fluid and inotropic therapy in surgical patients has remained a controversial topic for more than 40 years. The reasons for this are numerous and complex, but key amongst them is the interplay between poor research methodology and the likely selective reporting of randomised trials. In this issue of Perioperative Medicine, we find a very unusual report, one which describes a randomised trial stopped for futility after the recruitment of only a small proportion of the target patient sample (Jammer et al. Periop Med). The authors offer no statistical analysis of their findings but simply an explanation of what went wrong. On the face of it, this exercise would seem to offer little of value to the general reader. How can publication of the findings of an unsuccessful trial contribute to the evidence base on this topic? To understand this, we must delve a little deeper into the evidence and see how these trials were designed.

Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review.

Small trials suggest that postoperative outcomes may be improved by the use of cardiac output monitoring to guide administration of intravenous fluid and inotropic drugs as part of a hemodynamic therapy algorithm. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm. OPTIMISE was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded trial of 734 high-risk patients aged 50 years or older undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery at 17 acute care hospitals in the United Kingdom. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis were also conducted including randomized trials published from 1966 to February 2014. Patients were randomly assigned to a cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm for intravenous fluid and inotrope (dopexamine) infusion during and 6 hours following surgery (n=368) or to usual care (n=366). The primary outcome was a composite of predefined 30-day moderate or major complications and mortality. Secondary outcomes were morbidity on day 7; infection, critical care-free days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days; all-cause mortality at 180 days; and length of hospital stay. Baseline patient characteristics, clinical care, and volumes of intravenous fluid were similar between groups. Care was nonadherent to the allocated treatment for less than 10% of patients in each group. The primary outcome occurred in 36.6% of intervention and 43.4% of usual care participants (relative risk [RR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-1.01]; absolute risk reduction, 6.8% [95% CI, -0.3% to 13.9%]; P = .07). There was no significant difference between groups for any secondary outcomes. Five intervention patients (1.4%) experienced cardiovascular serious adverse events within 24 hours compared with none in the usual care group. Findings of the meta-analysis of 38 trials, including data from this study, suggest that the intervention is associated with fewer complications (intervention, 488/1548 [31.5%] vs control, 614/1476 [41.6%]; RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.83]) and a nonsignificant reduction in hospital, 28-day, or 30-day mortality (intervention, 159/3215 deaths [4.9%] vs control, 206/3160 deaths [6.5%]; RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.67-1.01]) and mortality at longest follow-up (intervention, 267/3215 deaths [8.3%] vs control, 327/3160 deaths [10.3%]; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.00]). In a randomized trial of high-risk patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery, use of a cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm compared with usual care did not reduce a composite outcome of complications and 30-day mortality. However, inclusion of these data in an updated meta-analysis indicates that the intervention was associated with a reduction in complication rates. isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN04386758.

The Cardiac Output Monitoring EvaluaTion –UK (COMET-UK) study

The aim of the Cardiac Output Monitoring EvaluaTion-UK (COMET-UK) study was to update reports of cardiac output (CO) monitoring use and to examine whether there is any association between the frequency of CO monitoring use in adult, general intensive care units and patient outcomes. Questionnaires were sent to all intensive care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (n=221) asking whether the unit had used CO monitoring in the last two years and, if so, to give details of average frequency of use and which CO monitors were available. The majority of units (n=100, 45.2%) used CO monitoring most days or a few times a week and 33 (14.9%) monitored CO every day (response rate 100%). The most commonly available methods were oesophageal Doppler (n=127, 57.5%), LiDCO (n=96, 43.4%) and PiCCO (n=92, 41.6%). There was no significant difference in risk-adjusted acute hospital mortality (p=0.25) or length of stay (p=0.48) across categories of frequency of use. However for ventilated vs non-ventilated patients and different quartiles of illness severity, there was an association between higher frequency of use and worse outcome among non-ventilated and lowest risk admissions quartiles. The COMET-UK study found that CO monitoring is in common use; however, there was no evidence that more frequent use of CO monitoring was associated with improved outcomes.

The use of cardiac output monitoring to guide the administration of intravenous fluid during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

The optimal strategy for intravenous (IV) fluid management during administration of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is unclear. In this prospective study we describe the use of a LiDCOrapid™ (LiDCO, Cambridge, UK) cardiac output monitor to guide IV fluid management during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with HIPEC. The aim of this study was to determine whether cardiac output monitoring will allow close maintenance of physiological parameters during the HIPEC phase. Twenty-five patients who underwent CRS combined with HIPEC were included in the study. Intra-operative IV fluid boluses were titrated using parameters measured by the LiDCOrapid™ monitor. Stroke volume variation was maintained below 10% with fluid boluses and mean arterial pressure was maintained within 20% of the baseline figure with vasopressors. There was no significant change in heart rate and cardiac output. The systemic vascular resistance dropped from an average of 966 dyn.s/cm-5 to 797dyns/cm(5) at 60min during the HIPEC phase (P=0.62) despite an increase in the dose of phenylepherine. The average total volume of fluid given was 748ml in the first 30min and 630ml in the second 30min with an average urine output of 307 and 445ml, respectively. The change in lactate levels was not statistically or clinically significant. LiDCOrapid™ is an effective noninvasive tool for guiding fluid management in this population. It allows the anaesthesiologist to maintain tight control of essential physiological parameters during a phase of the procedure in which there is a risk of renal injury.

Successful introduction of cardiac index, fluid responsiveness and oxygen delivery data into the primary survey at a central London major trauma centre and impact on time to CT, fluid resuscitation and disposal

The use of cardiac output monitoring has been shown to be beneficial in the setting of perioperative medicine and critical illness [1,2]. More recently, its application in the setting of major trauma has been described [3]. Here, we describe our preliminary experience of embedding bioreactance flow monitoring within the major trauma primary survey of severely injured patients and the subsequent effect on patient management.