Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25897397›Full record

ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2015

Perioperative fluid therapy: a statement from the international Fluid Optimization Group.

Lais Helena Camacho Navarro, Joshua A Bloomstone, Jose Otavio Costa Auler, Maxime Cannesson, Giorgio Della Rocca, Tong J Gan, Michael Kinsky, Sheldon Magder, Timothy E Miller, Monty Mythen and 4 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 88 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
31.0field-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.

NCT03546179 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Tidal Volume Challenge on Reliability of Plethysmography Variability Index in Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgeries.

TypeobservationalSponsorFayoum University HospitalRan2018 to 2020Enrolled48ConditionsAbdominal CancerArmstidal volume challenge test, Volume loading
NCT05254951 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Tidal Volume Challenge to Assess Volume Responsiveness with Dynamic Preload Indices During Surgery: a Prospective Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAttikon HospitalRan2022 to 2023Enrolled50ConditionsFluid Overload, Mechanical VentilationArmsTidal Volume Challenge
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 302 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Lais Helena Camacho NavarroAnesthesiology Department, Botucatu Medical School University of Sao Paulo State - UNESP, District of Rubiao Junior s/n, Botucatu, Sao Paulo, 18618-970 Brazil.
Joshua A BloomstoneValley Anesthesiology Consultants, Ltd., Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Banner Thunderbird Medical Center, Banner Health, Glendale, 85306 AZ USA.
Jose Otavio Costa AulerLaboratory of Anesthesiology LIM08, Medical School - University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 05508-070 São Paulo Brazil.
Maxime CannessonDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California, Irvine, 92697 CA USA.
Giorgio Della RoccaDepartment of Anesthesia and ICM, University of Udine, Udine, 33100 Italy.
Tong J GanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical School, Durham, 27710 NC USA.
Michael KinskyResuscitation Research Laboratory, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, 7755-0801 TX USA.
Sheldon MagderMedicine and Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, H3A 0G4 QC Canada.
Timothy E MillerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical School, Durham, 27710 NC USA.
Monty MythenUniversity College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, Fitzrovia, London, NW1 2BU UK.
Azriel PerelDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Aviv, 52621 Israel.
Daniel A ReuterCenter of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Hamburg Eppendorf University Medical Center, Hamburg, 20246 Germany.
Michael R PinskyDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 15213 PA USA.
George C KramerResuscitation Research Laboratory, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, 7755-0801 TX USA.
Duke University · USMcGill University · CAThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerioperative fluid therapy remains a highly debated topic. Its purpose is to maintain or restore effective circulating blood volume during the immediate perioperative period. Maintaining effective circulating blood volume and pressure are key components of assuring adequate organ perfusion while avoiding the risks associated with either organ hypo- or hyperperfusion. Relative to perioperative fluid therapy, three inescapable conclusions exist: overhydration is bad, underhydration is bad, and what we assume about the fluid status of our patients may be incorrect. There is wide variability of practice, both between individuals and institutions. The aims of this paper are to clearly define the risks and benefits of fluid choices within the perioperative space, to describe current evidence-based methodologies for their administration, and ultimately to reduce the variability with which perioperative fluids are administered.

methodsBased on the abovementioned acknowledgements, a group of 72 researchers, well known within the field of fluid resuscitation, were invited, via email, to attend a meeting that was held in Chicago in 2011 to discuss perioperative fluid therapy. From the 72 invitees, 14 researchers representing 7 countries attended, and thus, the international Fluid Optimization Group (FOG) came into existence. These researches, working collaboratively, have reviewed the data from 162 different fluid resuscitation papers including both operative and intensive care unit populations. This manuscript is the result of 3 years of evidence-based, discussions, analysis, and synthesis of the currently known risks and benefits of individual fluids and the best methods for administering them.

resultsThe results of this review paper provide an overview of the components of an effective perioperative fluid administration plan and address both the physiologic principles and outcomes of fluid administration.

conclusionsWe recommend that both perioperative fluid choice and therapy be individualized. Patients should receive fluid therapy guided by predefined physiologic targets. Specifically, fluids should be administered when patients require augmentation of their perfusion and are also volume responsive. This paper provides a general approach to fluid therapy and practical recommendations.

Indexed as

Fluid responsivenessFluid resuscitationGoal-directed fluid therapyPerioperative fluids

Identifiers

PMID25897397
PMCPMC4403901
OpenAlexW2101476075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.