Perioperative fluid management and outcomes in adult deceased donor liver transplantation – A systematic review of the literature and expert panel recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fluid management practices during and after liver transplantation vary widely among centers despite better understanding of the pathophysiology of end-stage liver disease and of the effects of commonly used fluids. This reflects a lack of high quality trials in this setting, but also provides a rationale for both systematic review of all relevant studies in liver recipients and evaluation of new evidence from closely related domains, including hepatology, non-transplant abdominal surgery, and critical care. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for perioperative fluid management to optimize immediate and short-term outcomes following liver transplantation. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Studies included those evaluating the following postoperative outcomes: acute kidney injury, respiratory complications, operative blood loss/red cell units required, and intensive care length of stay. PROSPERO protocol ID: CRD42021241392 RESULTS: Following expert panel review, 18 of 1624 screened studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion in the final quantitative synthesis. These included six single center RCTs, 11 single center observational studies, and one observational study comparing centers with different fluid management techniques. Definitions of interventions and outcomes varied between studies. Recommendations are therefore based substantially on expert opinion and evidence from other clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: A moderately restrictive or "replacement only" fluid regime is recommended, especially during the dissection phase of the transplant procedure. Sustained hypervolemia, based on absence of fluid responsiveness, elevated filling pressures and/or echocardiographic findings, should be avoided (Quality of Evidence: Moderate | Grade of Recommendation: Weak for restrictive fluid regime. Strong for avoidance of hypervolemia). Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) should be maintained at >60-65 mmHg in all cases (Quality of Evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong). There is insufficient evidence in this population to support preferential use of any specific colloid or crystalloid for routine volume replacement. However, we recommend against the use of 130/.4 HES given the high incidence of AKI in this population.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".