MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207868730 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001615

Impact of conventional vs. goal-directed fluid therapy on urethral tissue perfusion in patients undergoing liver surgery

2021· article· en· W3207868730 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerfusionLiver perfusionUrethraLiver tissue

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although fluid administration is a key strategy to optimise haemodynamic status and tissue perfusion, optimal fluid administration during liver surgery remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) strategy, when compared with a conventional fluid strategy, would better optimise systemic blood flow and lead to improved urethral tissue perfusion (a new variable to assess peripheral blood flow), without increasing blood loss. DESIGN: Single-centre prospective randomised controlled superiority study. SETTING: Erasme Hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing liver surgery. INTERVENTION: Forty patients were randomised into two groups: all received a basal crystalloid infusion (maximum 2 ml kg-1 h-1). In the conventional fluid group, the goal was to maintain central venous pressure (CVP) as low as possible during the dissection phase by giving minimal additional fluid, while in the posttransection phase, anaesthetists were free to compensate for any presumed fluid deficit. In the GDFT group, patients received in addition to the basal infusion, multiple minifluid challenges of crystalloid to maintain stroke volume (SV) variation less than 13%. Noradrenaline infusion was titrated to keep mean arterial pressure more than 65 mmHg in all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean intra-operative urethral perfusion index. RESULTS: The mean urethral perfusion index was significantly higher in the GDFT group than in the conventional fluid group (8.70 [5.72 to 13.10] vs. 6.05 [4.95 to 8.75], P = 0.046). SV index (ml m-2) and cardiac index (l min-1 m-2) were higher in the GDFT group (48 ± 9 vs. 33 ± 7 and 3.5 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.4, respectively; P < 0.001). Although CVP was higher in the GDFT group (9.3 ± 2.5 vs. 6.5 ± 2.9 mmHg; P = 0.003), intra-operative blood loss was not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing liver surgery, a GDFT strategy resulted in a higher mean urethral perfusion index than did a conventional fluid strategy and did not increase blood loss despite higher CVP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04092608.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207