Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Oct;7(4):378-86.
doi: 10.4103/1658-354X.121044.

Transoesophageal Doppler compared to central venous pressure for perioperative hemodynamic monitoring and fluid guidance in liver resection

Osama A El Sharkawy  1 , Emad K Refaat  2 , Abdel Elmoniem M Ibraheem  2 , Wafiya R Mahdy  1 , Nirmeen A Fayed  2 , Wesam S Mourad  2 , Hanaa S Abd Elhafez  2 , Khaled A Yassen  2
Affiliations

Transoesophageal Doppler compared to central venous pressure for perioperative hemodynamic monitoring and fluid guidance in liver resection

Osama A El Sharkawy et al. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013 Oct.

Erratum in

  • Saudi J Anaesth. 2014;8(1):133

Abstract

Purpose: Major hepatic resections may result in hemodynamic changes. Aim is to study transesophageal Doppler (TED) monitoring and fluid management in comparison to central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring. A follow-up comparative hospital based study.

Methods: 59 consecutive cirrhotic patients (CHILD A) undergoing major hepatotomy. CVP monitoring only (CVP group), (n=30) and TED (Doppler group), (n=29) with CVP transduced but not available on the monitor. Exclusion criteria include contra-indication for Doppler probe insertion or bleeding tendency. An attempt to reduce CVP during the resection in both groups with colloid restriction, but crystalloids infusion of 6 ml/kg/h was allowed to replace insensible loss. Post-resection colloids infusion were CVP guided in CVP group (5-10 mmHg) and corrected flow time (FTc) aortic guided in Doppler group (>0.4 s) blood products given according to the laboratory data.

Results: Using the FTc to guide Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 significantly decreased intake in TED versus CVP (1.03 [0.49] versus 1.74 [0.41] Liter; P<0.05). Nausea, vomiting, and chest infection were less in TED with a shorter hospital stay (P<0.05). No correlation between FTc and CVP (r=0.24, P > 0.05). Cardiac index and stroke volume of TED increased post-resection compared to baseline, 3.0 (0.9) versus 3.6 (0.9) L/min/m(2), P<0.05; 67.1 (14.5) versus 76 (13.2) ml, P<0.05, respectively, associated with a decrease in systemic vascular resistance (SVR) 1142.7 (511) versus 835.4 (190.9) dynes.s/cm(5), P<0.05. No significant difference in arterial pressure and CVP between groups at any stage. CVP during resection in TED 6.4 (3.06) mmHg versus 6.1 (1.4) in CVP group, P=0.6. TED placement consumed less time than CVP (7.3 [1.5] min versus 13.2 [2.9], P<0.05).

Conclusion: TED in comparison to the CVP monitoring was able to reduced colloids administration post-resection, lower morbidity and shorten hospital stay. TED consumed less time to insert and was also able to present significant hemodynamic changes. Advanced surgical techniques of resection play a key role in reducing blood loss despite CVP more than 5 cm H2O. TED fluid management protocols during resection need to be developed.

Keywords: Central venous pressure; liver resection; monitoring; transoesophageal Doppler.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box and whisker plots graph showing stroke volume changes (ml/beat) in Doppler group. Median (black line), inter-quartiles and ranges at five independent points. T1, after induction of anesthesia; T2, immediately after abdominal fascia opening; T3, during hepatectomy; T4, end of surgery; T5, 24 h after surgery. Repeated measures ANOVA test presented significant changes throughout measuring points P<0.05
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box plot graph of systemic vascular resistance (dyns. s/m5) changes in Doppler group as median and inter-quartile range in five independent points, T1 after induction of anesthesia; T2, during resection; T3, hepatectomy phase; T4, at the end of surgery; T5, 24 h after surgery. Repeated measures ANOVA test presented significant changes, P<0.05
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Buell JF, Rosen S, Yoshida A, Labow D, Limsrichamrern S, Cronin DC, et al. Hepatic resection: Effective treatment for primary and secondary tumors. Surgery. 2000;128:686–93. - PubMed
    1. Chiappa A, Zbar AP, Audisio RA, Leone BE, Biella F, Staudacher C. Factors affecting survival and long-term outcome in the cirrhotic patient undergoing hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2000;26:387–92. - PubMed
    1. Weber SM, Jarnagin WR, DeMatteo RP, Blumgart LH, Fong Y. Survival after resection of multiple hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:643–50. - PubMed
    1. Brancatisano R, Isla A, Habib N. Is radical hepatic surgery safe? Am J Surg. 1998;175:161–3. - PubMed
    1. Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Wong J. Intrahepatic recurrence after curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: Long-term results of treatment and prognostic factors. Ann Surg. 1999;229:216–22. - PMC - PubMed