Department of Anesthesiology

You are here

Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery.

TitleRestrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2018
AuthorsMyles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, Forbes A, Peyton P, Story D, Christophi C, Leslie K, McGuinness S, Parke R, Serpell J, Chan MTV, Painter T, McCluskey S, Minto G, Wallace S
Corporate AuthorsAustralian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group
JournalN Engl J Med
Volume378
Issue24
Pagination2263-2274
Date Published2018 06 14
ISSN1533-4406
KeywordsAbdomen, Acute Kidney Injury, Aged, Blood Loss, Surgical, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Female, Fluid Therapy, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypotonic Solutions, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Rehydration Solutions, Risk Factors
Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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.

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01424150 .).

DOI10.1056/NEJMoa1801601
Alternate JournalN. Engl. J. Med.
PubMed ID29742967

Clinical Trial Publication Category: