Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Pulse pressure variation-guided versus low central venous pressure-guided fluid management during elective open hepatectomy: a randomized non-inferiority trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow central venous pressure (LCVP)-guided fluid management is widely used to reduce blood loss during liver resection; however, LCVP is an unreliable marker of preload. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is a dynamic index of fluid responsiveness. This study evaluated whether a PPV-guided fluid management strategy is non-inferior to conventional LCVP-guided management in reducing intraoperative blood loss during elective open hepatectomy.
methodsIn this single-center, randomized, non-inferiority trial, adult patients (18-65 years) with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II scheduled for elective, non-donor open hepatic resection involving two or more segments were randomized to either an LCVP-guided group or a PPV-guided group. Fluid administration in both groups followed predefined hemodynamic algorithms. The primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes included total intraoperative fluid administration, urine output, serum lactate concentrations, and postoperative renal function. Non-inferiority was assessed using a prespecified margin of 98 ml.
resultsSixty-four patients (32 in each group) were included in the final analysis. Intraoperative blood loss was comparable between the LCVP and PPV groups (683 ± 276 ml vs. 726 ± 223 ml, respectively). The mean difference in blood loss was - 43 ml (95% confidence interval: -169 to 83 ml), with the upper limit remaining below the predefined non-inferiority margin, confirming non-inferiority of the PPV-guided strategy. Total crystalloid and colloid administration, urine output, surgical field grading, and perioperative serum lactate levels were similar between the two groups. Postoperative serum creatinine levels at 24 h did not differ significantly.
conclusionsPPV-guided fluid management was non-inferior to an LCVP-based strategy for reducing intraoperative blood loss during elective open hepatic resection, without evidence of compromised tissue perfusion. These findings suggest that PPV-guided fluid management may be a feasible alternative to CVP-targeted fluid management in this setting.
trial registrationThe trial was registered prospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2018/01/011547; registered on 24 January 2018).
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.