Pulse pressure variation-guided versus low central venous pressure-guided fluid management during elective open hepatectomy: a randomized non-inferiority trial.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ashish Singh Aditya, Anjali V, Kamal Kajal, Amarjyoti Hazarika, Shiv Lal Soni, Sameer Sethi, Lileswar Kaman
{"title":"Pulse pressure variation-guided versus low central venous pressure-guided fluid management during elective open hepatectomy: a randomized non-inferiority trial.","authors":"Ashish Singh Aditya, Anjali V, Kamal Kajal, Amarjyoti Hazarika, Shiv Lal Soni, Sameer Sethi, Lileswar Kaman","doi":"10.1186/s12871-026-04063-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low central venous pressure (LCVP)-guided fluid management is widely used to reduce blood loss during liver resection; however, LCVP is an unreliable marker of preload. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is a dynamic index of fluid responsiveness. This study evaluated whether a PPV-guided fluid management strategy is non-inferior to conventional LCVP-guided management in reducing intraoperative blood loss during elective open hepatectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial, adult patients (18-65 years) with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II scheduled for elective, non-donor open hepatic resection involving two or more segments were randomized to either an LCVP-guided group or a PPV-guided group. Fluid administration in both groups followed predefined hemodynamic algorithms. The primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes included total intraoperative fluid administration, urine output, serum lactate concentrations, and postoperative renal function. Non-inferiority was assessed using a prespecified margin of 98 ml.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four patients (32 in each group) were included in the final analysis. Intraoperative blood loss was comparable between the LCVP and PPV groups (683 ± 276 ml vs. 726 ± 223 ml, respectively). The mean difference in blood loss was - 43 ml (95% confidence interval: -169 to 83 ml), with the upper limit remaining below the predefined non-inferiority margin, confirming non-inferiority of the PPV-guided strategy. Total crystalloid and colloid administration, urine output, surgical field grading, and perioperative serum lactate levels were similar between the two groups. Postoperative serum creatinine levels at 24 h did not differ significantly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PPV-guided fluid management was non-inferior to an LCVP-based strategy for reducing intraoperative blood loss during elective open hepatic resection, without evidence of compromised tissue perfusion. These findings suggest that PPV-guided fluid management may be a feasible alternative to CVP-targeted fluid management in this setting.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was registered prospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2018/01/011547; registered on 24 January 2018).</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13625243/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-026-04063-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Low central venous pressure (LCVP)-guided fluid management is widely used to reduce blood loss during liver resection; however, LCVP is an unreliable marker of preload. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is a dynamic index of fluid responsiveness. This study evaluated whether a PPV-guided fluid management strategy is non-inferior to conventional LCVP-guided management in reducing intraoperative blood loss during elective open hepatectomy.

Methods: In this single-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial, adult patients (18-65 years) with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II scheduled for elective, non-donor open hepatic resection involving two or more segments were randomized to either an LCVP-guided group or a PPV-guided group. Fluid administration in both groups followed predefined hemodynamic algorithms. The primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes included total intraoperative fluid administration, urine output, serum lactate concentrations, and postoperative renal function. Non-inferiority was assessed using a prespecified margin of 98 ml.

Results: Sixty-four patients (32 in each group) were included in the final analysis. Intraoperative blood loss was comparable between the LCVP and PPV groups (683 ± 276 ml vs. 726 ± 223 ml, respectively). The mean difference in blood loss was - 43 ml (95% confidence interval: -169 to 83 ml), with the upper limit remaining below the predefined non-inferiority margin, confirming non-inferiority of the PPV-guided strategy. Total crystalloid and colloid administration, urine output, surgical field grading, and perioperative serum lactate levels were similar between the two groups. Postoperative serum creatinine levels at 24 h did not differ significantly.

Conclusions: PPV-guided fluid management was non-inferior to an LCVP-based strategy for reducing intraoperative blood loss during elective open hepatic resection, without evidence of compromised tissue perfusion. These findings suggest that PPV-guided fluid management may be a feasible alternative to CVP-targeted fluid management in this setting.

Trial registration: The trial was registered prospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2018/01/011547; registered on 24 January 2018).

择期开放肝切除术中脉压变化引导与低中心静脉压引导的液体管理:一项随机非劣效性试验。
背景:低中心静脉压(LCVP)引导下的液体管理被广泛用于减少肝切除术中的出血量;然而,LCVP是一个不可靠的预负荷标记。脉冲压力变化(PPV)是流体响应性的动态指标。本研究评估了ppv引导下的液体管理策略在减少择期开放肝切除术术中出血量方面是否优于传统的lcvp引导管理。方法:在这项单中心、随机、非低效性试验中,美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of anesthesologists)身体状态为I-II的成年患者(18-65岁)计划进行选择性的、涉及两个或多个节段的非供肝开放切除术,随机分为lcvp引导组和ppv引导组。两组均按照预先设定的血流动力学算法给药。主要结局为术中出血量。次要结局包括术中总给液量、尿量、血清乳酸浓度和术后肾功能。结果:64例患者(每组32例)被纳入最终分析。LCVP组和PPV组术中出血量相当(分别为683±276 ml和726±223 ml)。失血量的平均差异为- 43 ml(95%置信区间:-169至83 ml),上限仍低于预定义的非劣效性界限,证实ppv指导策略的非劣效性。两组患者的总晶体和胶体给药量、尿量、手术野区分级和围手术期血清乳酸水平相似。术后24 h血清肌酐水平无显著差异。结论:在减少择期开放肝切除术术中出血量方面,ppv引导下的液体管理不逊于以lcvp为基础的策略,没有证据表明组织灌注受损。这些发现表明,在这种情况下,ppv导向的流体管理可能是cvp靶向流体管理的可行替代方案。试验注册:该试验已在印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI/2018/01/011547;于2018年1月24日注册)前瞻性注册。
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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书