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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Jun 4:15:82.
doi: 10.1186/s12871-015-0064-2.

Continuous central venous oxygen saturation assisted intraoperative hemodynamic management during major abdominal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Continuous central venous oxygen saturation assisted intraoperative hemodynamic management during major abdominal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial

András Mikor et al. BMC Anesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: Major abdominal surgery is associated with significant risk of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period. Optimising intraoperative fluid administration may result in improved outcomes. Our aim was to compare the effects of central venous pressure (CVP), and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2)-assisted fluid therapy on postoperative complications in patients undergoing high risk surgery.

Methods: Patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery were randomised into control and ScvO2 groups. The target level of mean arterial pressure (MAP) was ≥ 60 mmHg in both groups. In cases of MAP < 60 mmHg patients received either a fluid or vasopressor bolus according to the CVP < 8 mmHg in the control group. In the ScvO2 group, in addition to the MAP, an ScvO2 of <75% or a >3% decrease indicated need for intervention, regardless of the actual MAP. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range).

Results: We observed a lower number of patients with complications in the ScvO2 group compared to the control group, however it did not reach statistical significance (ScvO2 group: 10 vs.

Control group: 19; p = 0.07). Patients in the ScvO2 group (n = 38) received more colloids compared to the control group (n = 41) [279(161) vs. 107(250) ml/h; p < 0.001]. Both groups received similar amounts of crystalloid (1126 ± 471 vs. 1049 ± 431 ml/h; p = 0.46) and norepinephrine [37(107) vs. 18(73) mcg/h; p = 0.84]. Despite similar blood loss in both groups, the ScvO2 group received more blood transfusions (63% vs. 37%; p = 0.018). More patients in the control group had a postoperative PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg (23 vs. 10, p < 0.01). Twenty eight day survival was significantly higher in the ScvO2 group (37/38 vs. 33/41 p = 0.018).

Conclusion: ScvO2-assisted intraoperative haemodynamic support provided some benefits, including significantly better postoperative oxygenation and 28 day survival rate, compared to CVP-assisted therapy without a significant effect on postoperative complications during major abdominal surgery.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02337010.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study design. MAP: mean arterial pressure, CVP: central venous pressure, ScvO2: central venous oxygen saturation, HES: hydroxyethyl starch, NE: norepinephrine
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT flow diagram of the study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Changes in central venous saturation (ScvO2) during the operation. Data are shown as mean and standard deviation
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Changes in mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the operation. Data are shown as mean and standard deviation
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Changes in central venous pressure (CVP) during the operation. Data are shown as mean and standard deviation
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Changes in lactate level during the operation. Data are shown as mean and standard deviation

References

    1. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, Haynes AB, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Gawande AA. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008;372:139–144. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60878-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kable AK, Gibberd RW, Spigelman AD. Adverse events in surgical patients in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14:269–276. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/14.4.269. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery. 1999;126:66–75. doi: 10.1067/msy.1999.98664. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Holte K, Sharrock NE, Kehlet H. Pathophysiology and clinical implications of perioperative fluid excess. Br J Anaesth. 2002;89:622–632. doi: 10.1093/bja/aef220. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lowell JA, Schifferdecker C, Driscoll DF, Benotti PN, Bistrian BR. Postoperative fluid overload: not a benign problem. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:728–733. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199007000-00010. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data