ArticleAcute medicine & surgery2018
Preoperative fluid restriction for trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock decreases ventilator days.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Correlation of preoperative inflammatory factors and emotional disorders with postoperative delirium in patients with craniocerebral trauma.World journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
- Pilot randomized controlled trial of restricted versus liberal crystalloid fluid management in pediatric post-operative and trauma patients.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- The effect of restrictive fluid management on outcomes among geriatric hip fractures: a retrospective cohort study at five level I trauma centers.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: In recent years, with the concept of damage control resuscitation, hemostasis and preoperative fluid restriction have been carried out, but there is controversy regarding the effectiveness of fluid restriction. Methods: From April 2007 to March 2013, 101 trauma patients presented with hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg) at the prehospital or emergency department and were admitted to Hyogo Emergency Medical Center (Hyogo, Japan). They underwent emergency hemostasis by surgery and transcatheter arterial embolization. We compared two groups in a historical cohort study, the aggressive fluid resuscitation (AR) group, which included 59 cases treated in the period April 2007-March 2010, and the fluid restriction (FR) group, which included 42 cases treated in the period April 2010-March 2013. Results: There was no difference between both groups in patient background (heart rate, 110 b.p.m.; systolic blood pressure, 70 mmHg). The Injury Severity Score was 34 (AR) versus 38 (FR) (not significant). Preoperative infusion volume of crystalloid significantly decreased, from 2310 mL (AR) to 1025 mL (FR) ( Conclusions: Preoperative fluid restriction for trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock did not improve mortality, but it decreased ventilator days by reducing the perioperative plus water balance and it might contribute to perioperative intensive care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.