Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in adult patients undergoing craniotomies under general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
K. Jangra, A. Gandhi, Nitasha Mishra, M. A. Shamim, B. Padhi
{"title":"Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in adult patients undergoing craniotomies under general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis","authors":"K. Jangra, A. Gandhi, Nitasha Mishra, M. A. Shamim, B. Padhi","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_240_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has conflicting evidence regarding outcomes in neurosurgical patients. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of GDFT and conventional fluid therapy on various perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures.\n \n \n \n A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Cochrane and preprint servers. The search was conducted up until 16 October 2023, following PROSPERO registration. The search strategy included terms related to GDFT, neurosurgery and perioperative outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials involving adult humans and comparing GDFT with standard/liberal/traditional/restricted fluid therapy were included. The studies were evaluated for risk of bias (RoB), and pooled estimates of the outcomes were measured in terms of risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).\n \n \n \n No statistically significant difference was observed in neurological outcomes between GDFT and conventional fluid therapy [RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.10 (0.69, 1.75), two studies, 90 patients, low certainty of evidence using GRADEpro]. GDFT reduced postoperative complications [RR = 0.67 (0.54, 0.82), six studies, 392 participants] and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay [MD (95% CI) were -1.65 (-3.02, -0.28) and -0.94 (-1.47, -0.42), respectively] with high certainty of evidence. The pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the GDFT group [RR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.38, 0.79), seven studies, 442 patients, high certainty of evidence]. Other outcomes, including total intraoperative fluids administered and blood loss, were comparable in GDFT and conventional therapy groups [MD (95% CI) were -303.87 (-912.56, 304.82) and -14.79 (-49.05, 19.46), respectively].\n \n \n \n The perioperative GDFT did not influence the neurological outcome. The postoperative complications and hospital and ICU stay were significantly reduced in the GDFT group.\n","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_240_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has conflicting evidence regarding outcomes in neurosurgical patients. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of GDFT and conventional fluid therapy on various perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Cochrane and preprint servers. The search was conducted up until 16 October 2023, following PROSPERO registration. The search strategy included terms related to GDFT, neurosurgery and perioperative outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials involving adult humans and comparing GDFT with standard/liberal/traditional/restricted fluid therapy were included. The studies were evaluated for risk of bias (RoB), and pooled estimates of the outcomes were measured in terms of risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). No statistically significant difference was observed in neurological outcomes between GDFT and conventional fluid therapy [RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.10 (0.69, 1.75), two studies, 90 patients, low certainty of evidence using GRADEpro]. GDFT reduced postoperative complications [RR = 0.67 (0.54, 0.82), six studies, 392 participants] and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay [MD (95% CI) were -1.65 (-3.02, -0.28) and -0.94 (-1.47, -0.42), respectively] with high certainty of evidence. The pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the GDFT group [RR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.38, 0.79), seven studies, 442 patients, high certainty of evidence]. Other outcomes, including total intraoperative fluids administered and blood loss, were comparable in GDFT and conventional therapy groups [MD (95% CI) were -303.87 (-912.56, 304.82) and -14.79 (-49.05, 19.46), respectively]. The perioperative GDFT did not influence the neurological outcome. The postoperative complications and hospital and ICU stay were significantly reduced in the GDFT group.
在全身麻醉下接受开颅手术的成年患者的术中目标导向液体疗法:系统回顾和荟萃分析以及试验序列分析
目标导向液体疗法(GDFT)在神经外科患者的预后方面证据不一。本荟萃分析旨在比较 GDFT 和传统输液疗法对神经外科手术患者各种围手术期预后的影响。 我们使用 PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、ProQuest、Web of Science、EBSCOhost、Cochrane 和预印本服务器进行了全面的文献检索。在 PROSPERO 注册后,检索一直持续到 2023 年 10 月 16 日。搜索策略包括与 GDFT、神经外科和围手术期结果相关的术语。仅纳入了涉及成人并将 GDFT 与标准/自由/传统/限制性液体疗法进行比较的随机对照试验。对这些研究进行了偏倚风险(RoB)评估,并以风险比(RR)和平均差(MD)对结果进行了汇总估计。 GDFT与传统输液疗法在神经系统结果方面无明显统计学差异[RR与95%置信区间(CI)为1.10(0.69,1.75),两项研究,90名患者,使用GRADEpro的证据确定性较低]。GDFT 可减少术后并发症[RR = 0.67 (0.54, 0.82),6 项研究,392 名参与者]、重症监护室(ICU)和住院时间[MD(95% CI)分别为-1.65 (-3.02, -0.28) 和-0.94 (-1.47, -0.42)],证据确定性高。GDFT组的肺部并发症明显降低[RR(95% CI)=0.55(0.38,0.79),7项研究,442例患者,证据高度确定]。其他结果,包括术中输液总量和失血量,GDFT 组与传统疗法组具有可比性[MD(95% CI)分别为 -303.87 (-912.56, 304.82) 和 -14.79 (-49.05, 19.46)]。 围手术期 GDFT 并不影响神经系统的预后。GDFT组的术后并发症、住院时间和重症监护室停留时间明显缩短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信