Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33521643›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2021

Understanding Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery Trial Results: Did Liberal Fluids Associate With Increased Endothelial Injury Markers?

Shailesh Bihari, Dani-Louise Dixon, Thomas Painter, Paul Myles, Andrew D Bersten

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

Article in Critical care explorations, 2021. 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT01424150 nacompletednot on this map

Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Therapy in Major Abdominal Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorBayside HealthRan2013 to 2017Enrolled3,000ConditionsAbdominal SurgeryArmsLiberal fluid therapy, Restrictive fluid therapy
NCT06188299 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Effects Of Intraoperative Different Fluid Therapy Protocols On Postoperative Renal Functions

TypeinterventionalSponsorAnkara City Hospital BilkentRan2022 to 2023Enrolled60ConditionsIntraoperative Fluid ManagementArmsRestricted Fluid Administration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rinaldo Bellomo: A clinician with a passion for preclinical research.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shailesh BihariCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Dani-Louise DixonCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Thomas PainterDepartment of Anesthesia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Paul MylesDepartment of Anesthesia, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Andrew D BerstenCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Flinders University · AUMonash University · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liberal fluid strategies in critically ill patients are associated with harm, thought to be due to endothelial and glycocalyx injury. As the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial not only failed to report survival benefit with restrictive fluids but was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury, we hypothesized that factors other than endothelial and glycocalyx injury were likely to account for these findings. Consequently, we measured injury biomarkers in a cohort of the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial.

designThe restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial was an international, randomized, assessor-blinded trial comparing restrictive with liberal IV fluid regimens that represented traditional care in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Cohort of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery bloods was collected at a single major site (161 patients) prior to, day 1 and day 3 after surgery.

interventionBloods were blindly and randomly batch analyzed for plasma markers of endothelial/glycocalyx injury-angiopoietin-1, angiopoietin-2, soluble tyrosine-protein kinase-2 receptor, soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1, syndecan, and tumor necrosis factor-α. Data were examined as restrictive versus liberal enrollment groups and high versus low (± 5,000 mL) fluid groups. Differences were examined by linear mixed modeling. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN

resultsThere were no significant differences in any biomarkers between the restrictive (

conclusionsAlthough these results are consistent with previous findings of vascular injury following liberal fluid therapy, they suggest alternative mechanisms underlie the clinical outcomes from restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery study. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01424150.

Indexed as

abdominal surgerybiomarkersendothelial injuryglycocalyx injuryinflammationrestrictive fluid strategy

Identifiers

PMID33521643
PMCPMC7838007
OpenAlexW3125683622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.