Upper-limb RIPC performed while patients were under propofol-induced anesthesia did not show a relevant benefit among patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; RIPHeart ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01067703.).

BackgroundFluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.MethodsThis was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.Results2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500–1000). The median time was 24 min (40–60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500–1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57–61 %). In 43 % (CI 41–45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34–37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20–24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70–74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.ConclusionsThe current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

There is a need for large trials that test the clinical effectiveness of interventions in the field of perioperative medicine. Clinical outcome measures used in such trials must be robust, clearly defined and patient-relevant. Our objective was to develop standards for the use of clinical outcome measures to strengthen the methodological quality of perioperative medicine research. A literature search was conducted using PubMed and opinion leaders worldwide were invited to nominate papers that they believed the group should consider. The full texts of relevant articles were reviewed by the taskforce members and then discussed to reach a consensus on the required standards. The report was then circulated to opinion leaders for comment and review. This report describes definitions for 22 individual adverse events with a system of severity grading for each. In addition, four composite outcome measures were identified, which were designed to evaluate postoperative outcomes. The group also agreed on standards for four outcome measures for the evaluation of healthcare resource use and quality of life. Guidance for use of these outcome measures is provided, with particular emphasis on appropriate duration of follow-up. This report provides clearly defined and patient-relevant outcome measures for large clinical trials in perioperative medicine. These outcome measures may also be of use in clinical audit. This report is intended to complement and not replace other related work to improve assessment of clinical outcomes following specific surgical procedures.