IntroductionIn some studies including small populations of patients undergoing specific surgery, an intraoperative liberal infusion of fluids was associated with increasing morbidity when compared to restrictive strategies. Therefore, to evaluate the role of excessive fluid infusion in a general population with high-risk surgery is very important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intraoperative fluid balance on the postoperative organ dysfunction, infection and mortality rate.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study during one year in four ICUs from three tertiary hospitals, which included patients aged 18 years or more who required postoperative ICU after undergoing major surgery. Patients who underwent palliative surgery and whose fluid balance could change in outcome were excluded. The calculation of fluid balance was based on preoperative fasting, insensible losses from surgeries and urine output minus fluid replacement intraoperatively.ResultsThe study included 479 patients. Mean age was 61.2 ± 17.0 years and 8.8% of patients died at the hospital during the study. The median duration of surgery was 4.0 (3.2 to 5.5) h and the value of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 score was 41.8 ± 14.5. Comparing survivors and non-survivors, the intraoperative fluid balance from non-survivors was higher (1,950 (1,400 to 3,400) mL vs. 1,400 (1,000 to 1,600) mL, P <0.001). Patients with fluid balance above 2,000 mL intraoperatively had a longer ICU stay (4.0 (3.0 to 8.0) vs. 3.0 (2.0 to 6.0), P <0.001) and higher incidence of infectious (41.9% vs. 25.9%, P = 0.001), neurological (46.2% vs. 13.2%, P <0.001), cardiovascular (63.2% vs. 39.6%, P <0.001) and respiratory complications (34.3% vs. 11.6%, P <0.001). In multivariate analysis, the fluid balance was an independent factor for death (OR per 100 mL = 1.024; P = 0.006; 95% CI 1.007 to 1.041).ConclusionsPatients with excessive intraoperative fluid balance have more ICU complications and higher hospital mortality.

Background and objectivesElderly individuals have a greater sensitivity to sedation, and the most commonly used drugs for sedation are benzodiazepines, which exhibit some complication. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam regarding proper sedation and postoperative complications in elderly individuals who require intraoperative sedation.MethodsThis study was a parallel-randomized clinical trial, which included 120 patients aged >70 years undergoing regional anesthesia and sedation. The exclusion criteria consisted of bradycardia, heart failure, respiratory failure, a Glasgow Coma Scale ≤14, liver failure and refusal to participate. Patients were divided into two groups: the first group received midazolam (MDZ), while the second group received dexmedetomidine (DEX). The doses were titrated to achieve an intraoperative Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score between −3 and −1. Incidences of complications were recorded.ResultsDuring a 120 min follow-up, the depth of sedation (RASS score) revealed variations less often in the DEX group (p=0.002). Patients in the DEX group (n=67) had lower rates of intraoperative complications (19.4% vs 73.6%, p<0.001). Intraoperatively, the incidence rates of psychomotor agitation (15.1% vs 1.5%, p=0.005), arterial hypotension (28.3% vs 3.0%, p<0.001) and respiratory depression (73.6% vs 0%, p<0.001) were higher in the MDZ group (n=53). During postanesthesia care, the incidence rates of shivering (p<0.001), residual sedation (p=0.04) and use of supplemental oxygen (p<0.001) were significantly lower in the DEX group.ConclusionsThe use of DEX for sedation during surgery provides better control over the depth of sedation and produces fewer complications in elderly individuals.Trial registration number NCT02878837.

OBJECTIVES:Acute kidney injury is associated with many conditions, and no interventions to improve the outcomes of established acute kidney injury have been developed. We performed this study to determine whether goal-directed therapy conducted during the early stages of acute kidney injury could change the course of the disease.METHODS:This was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. Patients with early acute kidney injury in the critical care unit were randomly allocated to a standard care (control) group or a goal-directed therapy group with 8h of intensive treatment to maximize oxygen delivery, and all patients were evaluated during a period of 72h. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02414906.RESULTS:A total of 143 patients were eligible for the study, and 99 patients were randomized. Central venous oxygen saturation was significantly increased and the serum lactate level significantly was decreased from baseline levels in the goal-directed therapy group (p=0.001) compared to the control group (p=0.572). No significant differences in the change in serum creatinine level (p=0.96), persistence of acute kidney injury beyond 72h (p=0.064) or the need for renal replacement therapy (p=0.82) were observed between the two groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the goal-directed therapy group than in the control group (33% vs. 51%; RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00, p=0.048, number needed to treat=5).CONCLUSIONS:Goal-directed therapy for patients in the early stages of acute kidney injury did not change the disease course.

We found that among patients with different types of acidosis, patients who developed hyperlactatemic metabolic acidosis postoperatively showed greater rates of renal dysfunction within 7 days and hyperlactatemic acidosis represented an independent factor on 30-day mortality in high-risk surgical patients.

No abstract