Intraoperative fluid management guided by esophageal Doppler monitoring in major abdominal surgery utilizing the enhanced recovery after surgery program

Author(s):  
Lindsay Wuellner ◽  
Lisa Sutton
2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hughes ◽  
Marielle M.E. Coolsen ◽  
Eirik K. Aahlin ◽  
Ewen M. Harrison ◽  
Stephen J. McNally ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Nicholas T. Haddock ◽  
Ricardo Garza ◽  
Carolyn E. Boyle ◽  
Sumeet S. Teotia

Abstract Background The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multivariate intervention requiring the help of several departments, including anesthesia, nursing, and surgery. This study seeks to observe ERAS compliance rates and obstacles for its implementation at a single academic institution. Methods This is a retrospective study looking at patients who underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction from January 2016 to September 2019. The ERAS protocol was implemented on select patients early 2017, with patients from 2016 acting as a control. Thirteen points from the protocol were identified and gathered from the patient's electronic medical record (EMR) to evaluate compliance. Results Two hundred and six patients were eligible for the study, with 67 on the control group. An average of 6.97 components were met in the pre-ERAS group. This number rose to 8.33 by the end of 2017. Compliance peaked with 10.53 components met at the beginning of 2019. The interventions most responsible for this increase were administration of preoperative medications, goal-oriented intraoperative fluid management, and administration of scheduled gabapentin postoperatively. The least met criterion was intraoperative ketamine goal of >0.2 mg/kg/h, with a maximum compliance rate of 8.69% of the time. Conclusion The introduction of new protocols can take over a year for full implementation. This is especially true for protocols as complex as an ERAS pathway. Even after years of consistent use, compliance gaps remain. Staff-, patient-, or resource-related issues are responsible for these discrepancies. It is important to identify these issues to address them and optimize patient outcomes.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Li ◽  
Sheng-Wen Wu ◽  
Dong-Fang Ge ◽  
Zai-Rong Tang ◽  
Cong-Chao Ma ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Restrictive fluid therapy is essential to enhanced recovery after surgery. A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the safety of restrictive fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery and compare it with liberal fluid therapy. Methodology : We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and EMBASE in which restrictive and liberal fluid therapies were compared. Data on complications, anastomotic leaks, and wound infections were extracted. Results: Eleven RCTs comparing the two therapies were included. Compared with liberal fluid therapy, restrictive fluid therapy lowered the risk of complications and cardiopulmonary dysfunction and had similar rates of mortality, anastomotic leak, pneumonia and would infection. But increased kidney injury was also observed in restrictive fluid therapy. Conclusion: Restrictive fluid therapy is safe but may have potential dangers, so caution is warranted in its application.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document