Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery.
Austin Authors: Myles, Paul S;Bellomo, Rinaldo ;Corcoran, Tomas;Forbes, Andrew;Peyton, Philip J ;Story, David A ;Christophi, Chris;Leslie, Kate;McGuinness, Shay;Parke, Rachael;Serpell, Jonathan;Chan, Matthew T V;Painter, Thomas;McCluskey, Stuart;Minto, Gary;Wallace, Sophie
Affiliation: Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
the University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Discipline of Acute Care Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
University Health Network, Toronto
Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, United Kingdom
Issue Date: 14-Jun-2018 2018-05-09
Publication information: The New England Journal of Medicine 2018; 378(24): 2263-2274
Abstract: Guidelines to promote the early recovery of patients undergoing major surgery recommend a restrictive intravenous-fluid strategy for abdominal surgery. However, the supporting evidence is limited, and there is concern about impaired organ perfusion. In a pragmatic, international trial, we randomly assigned 3000 patients who had an increased risk of complications while undergoing major abdominal surgery to receive a restrictive or liberal intravenous-fluid regimen during and up to 24 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was disability-free survival at 1 year. Key secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury at 30 days, renal-replacement therapy at 90 days, and a composite of septic complications, surgical-site infection, or death. During and up to 24 hours after surgery, 1490 patients in the restrictive fluid group had a median intravenous-fluid intake of 3.7 liters (interquartile range, 2.9 to 4.9), as compared with 6.1 liters (interquartile range, 5.0 to 7.4) in 1493 patients in the liberal fluid group (P<0.001). The rate of disability-free survival at 1 year was 81.9% in the restrictive fluid group and 82.3% in the liberal fluid group (hazard ratio for death or disability, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.24; P=0.61). The rate of acute kidney injury was 8.6% in the restrictive fluid group and 5.0% in the liberal fluid group (P<0.001). The rate of septic complications or death was 21.8% in the restrictive fluid group and 19.8% in the liberal fluid group (P=0.19); rates of surgical-site infection (16.5% vs. 13.6%, P=0.02) and renal-replacement therapy (0.9% vs. 0.3%, P=0.048) were higher in the restrictive fluid group, but the between-group difference was not significant after adjustment for multiple testing. Among patients at increased risk for complications during major abdominal surgery, a restrictive fluid regimen was not associated with a higher rate of disability-free survival than a liberal fluid regimen and was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; RELIEF number, NCT01424150 .).
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801601
ORCID: 0000-0002-1650-8939
PubMed URL: 29742967
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on Nov 29, 2022

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.