• Annals of surgery · Dec 2006

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing intermittent portal triad clamping versus ischemic preconditioning with continuous clamping for major liver resection.

    • Henrik Petrowsky, Lucas McCormack, Martha Trujillo, Markus Selzner, Wolfram Jochum, and Pierre-Alain Clavien.
    • Swiss Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) Center, Department of Visceral & Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
    • Ann. Surg. 2006 Dec 1;244(6):921-8; discussion 928-30.

    ObjectiveTo evaluate whether ischemic preconditioning (IP) with continuous clamping or intermittent clamping (IC) of the portal triad confers better protection during liver surgery.Summary Background DataIP and IC are distinct protective approaches against ischemic injury. Since both strategies proved to be superior in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to continuous inflow occlusion alone, we designed a RCT to compare IP and IC in patients undergoing major liver resection.MethodsNoncirrhotic patients undergoing major liver resection were randomized to receive IP with inflow occlusion (n = 36) or IC (n = 37). Primary endpoints were postoperative liver injury and intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative liver injury was assessed by peak values of AST (alanine aminotransferase) and ALT (aspartate aminotransferase), as well as the area under the curve (AUC) of the postoperative transaminase course. Secondary endpoints included resection time, the need of blood transfusion, ICU, and hospital stay as well as postoperative complications and mortality.ResultsBoth groups were comparable regarding demographics, ASA score, type of hepatectomy, duration of inflow occlusion (range, 30-75 minutes), and resection surface. The transection-related blood loss was 146 versus 250 mL (P = 0.008), and when standardized to the resection surface 1.2 versus 1.8 mL/cm (P = 0.01) for IP and IC, respectively. Although peak AST, AUCAST, and AUCALT were lower for IC, the differences did not reach statistical significance. Overall (42% vs. 38%) and major (33 vs. 27%) postoperative complications as well as median ICU (1 vs. 1 day) and hospital stay (10 vs. 11 days) were similar between both groups.ConclusionsBoth IP and IC appear to be equally effective in protecting against postoperative liver injury in noncirrhotic patients undergoing major liver resection. However, IP is associated with lower blood loss and shorter transection time. Therefore, both strategies can be recommended for noncirrhotic patients undergoing liver resection.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?

    User can't be blank.

    Content can't be blank.

    Content is too short (minimum is 15 characters).

    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…