Skip to main content

Goal-directed therapy in the perioperative management: is a complete hemodynamics bundle of care better?

We read with a deep interest Messina et al.’s meta-analysis focusing on goal-directed therapy (GDT) in major visceral/non-cardiac surgery [1]. This research describes a reduction in perioperative complications in favor of GDT therapy, but not an improvement in perioperative mortality. Although the article supports the use of GDT in the perioperative setting, optimal GDT protocol still remains unclear.

The 21 studies included in the analysis can be divided into two subgroups: on the one hand those which only protocolized the fluid management and on the other hand those which protocolized a complete hemodynamics bundle of care including fluid management but also vasopressor or inotrope use. The second subgroup of studies (complete bundle of care) appears to have the most beneficial effect on perioperative complications found in the meta-analysis. This subgroup also included five of the only six studies of the meta-analysis which found a significant effect of GDT on perioperative complications by themselves. Moreover, the two studies with the greatest benefit of GDT also included a mean arterial pressure goal and the use of vasopressors and dobutamine in their protocols [2, 3].

In our opinion, the additional benefit of bundle protocols could be explained by the reduction in hypotension episodes occurrence and duration, thanks to a more frequent screening and a more aggressive treatment of these episodes in such protocols. In fact, even if the optimal blood pressure target remains controversial, hypotension is a well-known risk factor for complications in the perioperative period [4]. To corroborate this hypothesis, some GDT protocols which included a blood pressure target and interventions to reach it have shown a reduction in hypotension episodes or higher mean arterial pressure levels during the intraoperative period [2, 3].

In conclusion, all GDT protocols are not equivalent, and complete hemodynamics GDT protocols seem to be more efficient than fluid management only protocols. We suggest exploring the possible benefit of complete hemodynamics GDT protocols on morbidity and mortality in major visceral and non-cardiac surgery.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. 1.

    Messina A, Robba C, Calabrò L, Zambelli D, Iannuzzi F, Molinari E, et al. Association between perioperative fluid administration and postoperative outcomes: a 20-year systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized goal-directed trials in major visceral/noncardiac surgery. Crit Care. 2021;25:43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Benes J, Chytra I, Altmann P, Hluchy M, Kasal E, Svitak R, et al. Intraoperative fluid optimization using stroke volume variation in high risk surgical patients: results of prospective randomized study. Crit Care. 2010;14:R118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Mayer J, Boldt J, Mengistu AM, Röhm KD, Suttner S. Goal-directed intraoperative therapy based on autocalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis reduces hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care. 2010;14:R18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sessler DI, Meyhoff CS, Zimmerman NM, Mao G, Leslie K, Vásquez SM, et al. Period-dependent associations between hypotension during and for four days after noncardiac surgery and a composite of myocardial infarction and death: a substudy of the POISE-2 Trial. Anesthesiology. 2018;128:317–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

NH and JBD wrote the manuscript, and GC and MDDD revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Herzog.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herzog, N., Dablin, JB., Giacardi, C. et al. Goal-directed therapy in the perioperative management: is a complete hemodynamics bundle of care better?. Crit Care 25, 105 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03527-3

Download citation

\