• Eur J Anaesthesiol · Jun 2016

    Review Meta Analysis

    Targeting oliguria reversal in perioperative restrictive fluid management does not influence the occurrence of renal dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Mohamud Egal, Hilde R H de Geus, Jasper van Bommel, and A B Johan Groeneveld.
    • From the Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
    • Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016 Jun 1; 33 (6): 425-35.

    BackgroundInterest in perioperative fluid restriction has increased, but it could lead to hypovolaemia. Urine output is viewed as a surrogate for renal perfusion and is frequently used to guide perioperative fluid therapy. However, the rationale behind targeting oliguria reversal - achieving and maintaining urine output above a previously defined threshold by additional fluid boluses - is often questioned.ObjectiveWe assessed whether restrictive fluid management had an effect on oliguria, acute renal failure (ARF) and fluid intake. We also investigated whether targeting oliguria reversal affected these parameters.DesignSystematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analyses. We used the definitions of restrictive and conventional fluid management as provided by the individual studies.Data SourcesWe searched MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present), and relevant reviews and articles.Eligibility CriteriaWe included randomised controlled trials with adult patients undergoing surgery comparing restrictive fluid management with a conventional fluid management protocol and also reporting the occurrence of postoperative ARF.ResultsWe included 15 studies with a total of 1594 patients. There was insufficient evidence to associate restrictive fluid management with an increase in oliguria [restrictive 83/186 vs. conventional 68/230; odds ratio (OR) 2.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97 to 4.44; P = 0.06; I = 23.7%; Nstudies = 5]. The frequency of ARF in restrictive and conventional fluid management was 20/795 and 20/799, respectively (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.92; P = 0.8; I = 17.5%; Nstudies = 15). There was no statistically significant difference in ARF occurrence between studies targeting oliguria reversal and not targeting oliguria reversal (OR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.22; P = 0.088). Intraoperative fluid intake was 1.89 l lower in restrictive than in conventional fluid management when not targeting oliguria reversal (95% CI, -2.59 to -1.20 l; P < 0.001; I = 96.6%; Nstudies = 7), and 1.63 l lower when targeting oliguria reversal (95% CI, -2.52 to -0.74 l; P < 0.001; I = 96.6%; Nstudies = 6).ConclusionOur data suggest that, even though event numbers are small, perioperative restrictive fluid management does not increase oliguria or postoperative ARF while decreasing intraoperative fluid intake, irrespective of targeting reversal of oliguria or not.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    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…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.