Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23672779›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2013

Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups.

Maurizio Cecconi, Carlos Corredor, Nishkantha Arulkumaran, Gihan Abuella, Jonathan Ball, R Michael Grounds, Mark Hamilton, Andrew Rhodes

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03799250 (Common Clinical Indices-guided Bolus-based vs. Continuous Fluid Management A Prospective, Randomized Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 119 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
26.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03799250 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Common Clinical Indices-guided Bolus-based vs. Continuous Fluid Management A Prospective, Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRabin Medical CenterRan2019 to 2020Enrolled200ConditionsRinger's LactateArmsRinger lactate, standard care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 347 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Intraoperative Goal-Directed Perfusion in Cardiac Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass: The Roles of Delivery Oxygen Index and Cardiac Index.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maurizio Cecconi
Carlos Corredor
Nishkantha Arulkumaran
Gihan Abuella
Jonathan Ball
R Michael Grounds
Mark Hamilton
Andrew Rhodes
St George's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with limited cardiac reserve are less likely to survive and develop more complications following major surgery. By augmenting oxygen delivery index (DO2I) with a combination of intravenous fluids and inotropes (goal directed therapy (GDT)), postoperative mortality and morbidity of high-risk patients may be reduced. However, although most studies suggest that GDT may improve outcome in high-risk surgical patients, it is still not widely practiced. We set out to test the hypothesis that GDT results in greatest benefit in terms of mortality and morbidity in patients with the highest risk of mortality and have undertaken a systematic review of the current literature to see if this is correct. We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews of GDT in surgical patients. To minimize heterogeneity we excluded studies involving cardiac, trauma, and paediatric surgery. Extremely high risk, high risk and intermediate risks of mortality were defined as >20%, 5 to 20% and <5% mortality rates in the control arms of the trials, respectively. Meta analyses were performed and Forest plots drawn using RevMan software. Data are presented as odd ratios (OR; 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P-values). A total of 32 RCTs including 2,808 patients were reviewed. All studies reported mortality. Five studies (including 300 patients) were excluded from assessment of complication rates as the number of patients with complications was not reported. The mortality benefit of GDT was confined to the extremely high-risk group (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; P < 0.0001). Complication rates were reduced in all subgroups (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; P < 0.00001). The morbidity benefit was greatest amongst patients in the extremely high-risk subgroup (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; P < 0.0001), followed by the intermediate risk subgroup (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; P = 0.0002), and the high-risk subgroup (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89; P = 0.01). Despite heterogeneity in trial quality and design, we found GDT to be beneficial in all high-risk patients undergoing major surgery. The mortality benefit of GDT was confined to the subgroup of patients at extremely high risk of death. The reduction of complication rates was seen across all subgroups of GDT patients.

Indexed as

Patient Care PlanningEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMortalityPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23672779
PMCPMC3679445
OpenAlexW2132840395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.