scholarly journals Fluid management in patients undergoing neurosurgery

Author(s):  
Taeha Ryu

Fluid management is an important component of perioperative care for patients undergoing neurosurgery. The primary goal of fluid management in neurosurgery is the maintenance of normovolemia and prevention of serum osmolarity reduction. To maintain normovolemia, it is important to administer fluids in appropriate amounts following appropriate methods, and to prevent a decrease in serum osmolarity, the choice of fluid is essential. There is considerable debate about the choice and optimal amounts of fluids administered in the perioperative period. However, there is little high-quality clinical research on fluid therapy for patients undergoing neurosurgery. This review will discuss the choice and optimal amounts of fluids in neurosurgical patients based on the literature, recent issues, and perioperative fluid management practices.

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (02) ◽  
pp. 114-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyssa Zhu ◽  
Xiaodong Bao ◽  
Aalok Agarwala

AbstractFluid management is an essential component of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathway. Optimal management begins in the preoperative period and continues through the intraoperative and postoperative phases. In this review, we outline current evidence-based practices for fluid management through each phase of the perioperative period. Preoperatively, patients should be encouraged to hydrate until 2 hours prior to the induction of anesthesia with a carbohydrate-containing clear liquid. When mechanical bowel preparation is necessary, with modern isoosmotic solutions, fluid repletion is not necessary. Intraoperatively, fluid therapy should aim to maintain euvolemia with an individualized approach. While some patients may benefit from goal-directed fluid therapy, a restrictive, zero-balance approach to intraoperative fluid management may be reasonable. Postoperatively, early initiation of oral intake and cessation of intravenous therapy are recommended.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e042079
Author(s):  
Sylvia Omoke ◽  
Mike English ◽  
Jalemba Aluvaala ◽  
David Gathara ◽  
Ambrose Agweyu ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo examine the prevalence of dehydration without diarrhoea among admitted children aged 1–59 months and to describe fluid management practices in such cases.DesignA multisite observational study that used routine in-patient data collected prospectively between October 2013 and December 2018.SettingsStudy conducted in 13 county referral hospitals in Kenya.ParticipantsChildren aged 1–59 months with admission or discharge diagnosis of dehydration but had no diarrhoea as a symptom or diagnosis. Children aged <28 days and those with severe acute malnutrition were excluded.ResultsThe prevalence of dehydration in children without diarrhoea was 3.0% (2019/68 204) and comprised 15.9% (2019/12 702) of all dehydration cases. Only 55.8% (1127/2019) of affected children received either oral or intravenous fluid therapy. Where fluid treatment was given, the volumes, type of fluid, duration of fluid therapy and route of administration were similar to those used in the treatment of dehydration secondary to diarrhoea. Pneumonia (1021/2019, 50.6%) and malaria (715/2019, 35.4%) were the two most common comorbid diagnoses. Overall case fatality in the study population was 12.9% (260/2019).ConclusionSixteen per cent of children hospitalised with dehydration do not have diarrhoea but other common illnesses. Two-fifths do not receive fluid therapy; a regimen similar to that used in diarrhoeal cases is used in cases where fluid is administered. Efforts to promote compliance with guidance in routine clinical settings should recognise special circumstances where guidelines do not apply, and further studies on appropriate management for dehydration in the absence of diarrhoea are required.


Author(s):  
Amgd Shaaban El-Sheikh ◽  
Sameh Abdelkhalik Ismael ◽  
Nagat Sayed El-Shmaa ◽  
Soheir Mostafa Soliman

Background: Fluid management in neurosurgical patients is critical and important during the perioperative period. Electrical cardiometry (EC) is a new noninvasive technique for measuring cardiac output (COP). EC works based on the application of a high frequency transthoracic current and the analysis of variations of voltage in each heartbeat. The aim of this work is to compare the fluid management of intracranial surgeries using EC routine parameters. Methods: This is a prospective randomized, double-blinded controlled study was carried out on 70 patients of both genders aged > 21 years old, ASA physical status II or III, GCS 15 scheduled for elective craniotomy. Patients were divided into two equal groups at random; group A: standard management, group B: EC guided management. The primary outcome was the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Results: The ICU and hospital stay duration were significantly decreased in group B compared to group A. The mean total amount of infused volume of crystalloid solutions was significantly decreased in group B compared to group A. Hemodynamics, and number of patients received colloid, blood, vasopressor, and inotropes were insignificantly different between both groups. There was a significant increase in optic nerve sheath diameter in group A compared to group B at PACU and 24 h. Adverse events were comparable between both groups except encephalodema, which was significantly higher in group A. Conclusions: EC is an effective tool in COP measurement and a novel guide for fluid therapy as EC guided fluid therapy group was significantly decreased in ICU and hospital stay duration and the total amount of crystalloid with fewer adverse events.


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Messina ◽  
Chiara Robba ◽  
Lorenzo Calabrò ◽  
Daniel Zambelli ◽  
Francesca Iannuzzi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients’ outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. Results After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (− 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0–66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02–0.09); p value  = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value  = 0.33) or late (p value  = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups Conclusions In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. Trial Registration CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 100499
Author(s):  
Ashlee J. McCallin ◽  
Veronica A. Hough ◽  
Rachael E. Kreisler

The Lancet ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 369 (9578) ◽  
pp. 1984-1986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Jacob ◽  
Daniel Chappell ◽  
Markus Rehm

2010 ◽  
Vol 110 (5) ◽  
pp. 1506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian McAlister ◽  
Karen E. Burns ◽  
Tammy Znajda ◽  
Brian Church

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 187
Author(s):  
Dorothee Boehm ◽  
Henrik Menke

Fluid management is a cornerstone in the treatment of burns and, thus, many different formulas were tested for their ability to match the fluid requirements for an adequate resuscitation. Thereof, the Parkland-Baxter formula, first introduced in 1968, is still widely used since then. Though using nearly the same formula to start off, the definition of normovolemia and how to determine the volume status of burn patients has changed dramatically over years. In first instance, the invention of the transpulmonary thermodilution (TTD) enabled an early goal directed fluid therapy with acceptable invasiveness. Furthermore, the introduction of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has triggered more individualized schemes of fluid therapy. This article explores the historical developments in the field of burn resuscitation, presenting different options to determine the fluid requirements without missing the red flags for hyper- or hypovolemia. Furthermore, the increasing rate of co-morbidities in burn patients calls for a more sophisticated fluid management adjusting the fluid therapy to the actual necessities very closely. Therefore, formulas might be used as a starting point, but further fluid therapy should be adjusted to the actual need of every single patient. Taking the developments in the field of individualized therapies in intensive care in general into account, fluid management in burn resuscitation will also be individualized in the near future.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manu L. N. G. Malbrain ◽  
Niels Van Regenmortel ◽  
Bernd Saugel ◽  
Brecht De Tavernier ◽  
Pieter-Jan Van Gaal ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document