Individualized Fluid Management Using the Pleth Variability Index

Abstract

Background The present trial was designed to assess whether individualized strategies of fluid administration using a noninvasive plethysmographic variability index could reduce the postoperative hospital length of stay and morbidity after intermediate-risk surgery. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, nonblinded parallel-group clinical trial conducted in five hospitals. Adult patients in sinus rhythm having elective orthopedic surgery (knee or hip arthroplasty) under general anesthesia were enrolled. Individualized hemodynamic management aimed to achieve a plethysmographic variability index under 13%, and the standard management strategy aimed to maintain a mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg during general anesthesia. The primary outcome was the postoperative hospital length of stay decided by surgeons blinded to the group allocation of the patient. Results In total, 447 patients were randomized, and 438 were included in the analysis. The mean hospital length of stay ± SD was 6 ± 3 days for the plethysmographic variability index group and 6 ± 3 days for the control group (adjusted difference, 0.0 days; 95% CI, −0.6 to 0.5; P = 0.860); the theoretical postoperative hospital length of stay was 4 ± 2 days for the plethysmographic variability index group and 4 ± 1 days for the control group (P = 0.238). In the plethysmographic variability index and control groups, serious postoperative cardiac complications occurred in 3 of 217 (1%) and 2 of 224 (1%) patients (P = 0.681), acute postoperative renal failure occurred in 9 (4%) and 8 (4%) patients (P = 0.808), the troponin Ic concentration was more than 0.06 μg/l within 5 days postoperatively for 6 (3%) and 5 (2%) patients (P = 0.768), and the postoperative arterial lactate measurements were 1.44 ± 1.01 and 1.43 ± 0.95 mmol/l (P = 0.974), respectively. Conclusions Among intermediate-risk patients having orthopedic surgery with general anesthesia, fluid administration guided by the plethysmographic variability index did not shorten the duration of hospitalization or reduce complications. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Perioperative goal-directed therapy in high-risk abdominal surgery. A multicenter randomized controlled superiority trial

“…During the term of our study, several new studies performed in large patient groups were published. In these studies, PGDT did not improve patient outcomes in intermediate risk patients scheduled for elective hip or knee arthroplasty [32]. The same applies to the Optimise-1 trial in major gastrointestinal surgery patients [33], although a tendency towards improved outcomes was observed.…”

Perfusion index: Physical principles, physiological meanings and clinical implications in anaesthesia and critical care

“…Furthermore, PVI is also (as it is derived from PI) largely influenced by the measurement site and seems to be more accurate to predict fluid responsiveness when measured in the forehead, less influenced by vasomotor tone than finger and earlobe [70]. Although a previous study showed reduced volume of intraoperative fluid infused and lactate levels using a PVI-guided fluid management, a recent randomised controlled trial using a haemodynamic peroperative management based on PVI value compared to a standard management did not shorten the duration of hospitalisation [71,72]. Therefore, further studies are needed to assess whether or not PVI value is useful in haemodynamic management in the OT.…”

Hydroxyethyl starch for perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy in 2020: a narrative review

“…Adequate GDFT for patients undergoing major surgery requires that stroke volume or cardiac output are monitored to assess fluid responsiveness and that an algorithm is designed that will be applied by all members of the anesthesia team. Admittedly, some studies have not demonstrated a beneficial effect of GDFT on patient outcome [21][22][23][24][25]. However, these studies were mainly underpowered and/ or conducted in relatively healthy patients with minimal fluid shift and blood loss [23,24,[26][27][28].…”

“…Admittedly, some studies have not demonstrated a beneficial effect of GDFT on patient outcome [21][22][23][24][25]. However, these studies were mainly underpowered and/ or conducted in relatively healthy patients with minimal fluid shift and blood loss [23,24,[26][27][28]. Additionally, compliance to the study protocols must be examined closely when evaluating the results [29].…”