当前位置： SCI文献检索 > CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION期刊下所有文献 > Low central venous pressure versus acute normovolemic hemodilution versus conventional fluid management for reducing blood loss in radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Low central venous pressure versus acute normovolemic hemodilution versus conventional fluid management for reducing blood loss in radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract：

OBJECTIVE:To compare acute normovolemic hemodilution versus low central venous pressure strategy versus conventional fluid management in reducing intraoperative estimated blood loss, hematocrit drop and need for blood transfusion in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy under general anesthesia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:Patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy under general anesthesia were randomized to conventional fluid management, acute normovolemic hemodilution or low central venous pressure (≤5 mmHg). Treatment effects on estimated blood loss and hematocrit change were tested in multivariable regression models accounting for surgeon, prostate size, and all two-way interactions. RESULTS:Ninety-two patients completed the study. Estimated blood loss (mean ± SD) was significantly lower with low central venous pressure (706 ± 362 ml) compared to acute normovolemic hemodilution (1103 ± 635 ml) and conventional (1051 ± 714 ml) groups (p = 0.0134). There was no difference between the groups in need for blood transfusion, or hematocrit drop from preoperative values. The multivariate model predicting estimated blood loss showed a significant effect of treatment (p = 0.0028) and prostate size (p = 0.0323), accounting for surgeon (p = 0.0013). In the model predicting hematocrit change, accounting for surgeon difference (p = 0.0037), the treatment effect depended on prostate size (p = 0.0007) with the slope of low central venous pressure differing from the other two groups. Hematocrit was predicted to drop more with increased prostate size in acute normovolemic hemodilution and conventional groups but not with low central venous pressure. KEY LIMITATIONS:Limitations include the inability to blind providers to group assignment, possible variability between providers in estimation of blood loss, and the relatively small sample size that was not powered to detect differences between the groups in need for blood transfusion. CONCLUSIONS:Maintaining low central venous pressure reduced estimated blood loss compared to conventional fluid management and acute normovolemic hemodilution in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy but there was no difference in allogeneic blood transfusion between the groups.

journal_name

Curr Med Res Opin

journal_title

Current medical research and opinion

authors

Habib AS,Moul JW,Polascik TJ,Robertson CN,Roche AM,White WD,Hill SE,Nosnick I,Gan TJ,Duke Perioperative Outcome Study Group.

doi

10.1185/03007995.2013.877436

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2014-05-01 00:00:00

pages

937-43

issue

eissn

0300-7995

issn

1473-4877

journal_volume

pub_type

杂志文章,随机对照试验

在线工具

Low central venous pressure versus acute normovolemic hemodilution versus conventional fluid management for reducing blood loss in radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial.