NCT01473446

Traditional Versus Goal Directed Perioperative Fluid Therapy in High Risk Patients

Traditional Versus Goal Directed Perioperative Fluid Therapy in High Risk Patients. A Randomized, Assessor-blinded Study

• Status: Terminated
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 30 (actual)
• Sponsor: Haukeland University Hospital · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

Is goal directed fluid therapy reducing postoperative complications in comparison to traditional fluid therapy for gastro surgical ASA III/IV patients? The investigators compare two groups of patients: one group receives goal directed fluid therapy guided by LiDCOrapid stroke volume variation (SVV), the other gets the "traditional" fluids, ie the current regime.

Conditions

• Postoperative Complications

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
PROCEDURE	Goal directed fluid therapy guided by LiDCOrapid	Standard monitoring. The patient is connected to the LiDCOrapid monitor via an arterial line placed in a.radialis. A bolus of 500 ml Ringer acetate is given before anesthesia. If the stroke volume (SV) increases more than 10%, repeat the procedure until the SV is not increasing. After that, induction of anesthesia. Maintenance fluid is given as Ringer acetate 2ml/kg/t. Continuous monitoring of stroke volume variation (SVV). If SVV\> 10%, give a fluid bolus 6ml/kg Ringer acetate. Repeat until SVV \<10%. Bleeding is being replaced 1:1 with hydroxyethyl starch. SAG by bleeding \>1000ml. By fall in blood pressure and SVV \<10%, start vasoactive treatment with epinephrine. Postoperative is given Glucose 5% 80ml/h.

Timeline

• Start date: 2012-01-01
• Primary completion: 2013-12-01
• First posted: 2011-11-17
• Last updated: 2015-03-30

Locations

3 sites across 2 countries: Finland, Norway