4.4 Article

Impact of fluid resuscitation on major adverse events following pancreaticoduodenectomy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 210, 期 5, 页码 896-903

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.04.020

关键词

Pancreatico duodenectomy; Pancreatic neoplasms; Postoperative complications; Fluid therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy remains a major undertaking with substantial perioperative morbidity and mortality. Previous studies in the colorectal population have noted a correlation between excessive postoperative fluid resuscitation and anastomotic complications. This study sought to assess the relationship between perioperative fluid management and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: Data from a single institution, prospective database over a 10-year period (2002 to 2012) were reviewed. Patients were compared for perioperative fluid balance and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess the relationship between perioperative fluid administration and incidence of major adverse events. RESULTS: Higher positive fluid balance on postoperative day 0, postoperative day 1, and postoperative day 2 was associated with increased incidence of major adverse events, increased postoperative intensive care unit admission, and longer hospital stay. Higher positive fluid balance on postoperative day 0 was most strongly associated with postoperative morbidity (odds ratio 1.39, confidence interval 1.16 to 1.66, P = .0003). Fluid balance on postoperative day 3 was not associated with adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Increased early perioperative fluid resuscitation is associated with major adverse events in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. More restrictive fluid administration may improve postoperative outcomes; further prospective clinical trials focused on fluid resuscitation and goal-directed therapy are needed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据