Targeting oliguria reversal in perioperative restrictive fluid management does not influence the occurrence of renal dysfunction

A systematic review and meta-analysis

Egal, Mohamud; de Geus, Hilde R.H.; van Bommel, Jasper; Groeneveld, A.B. Johan

From the Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Correspondence to Mohamud Egal, Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Room H-602, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 10 7035142; fax: +31 10 4366978; e-mail:[email protected]

Published online 1 February 2016

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website (www.ejanaesthesiology.com).

European Journal of Anaesthesiology33(6):p 425-435, June 2016. |DOI:10.1097/EJA.0000000000000416

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Interest in perioperative fluid restriction has increased, but it could lead to hypovolaemia. Urine output is viewed as a surrogate for renal perfusion and is frequently used to guide perioperative fluid therapy. However, the rationale behind targeting oliguria reversal – achieving and maintaining urine output above a previously defined threshold by additional fluid boluses – is often questioned.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether restrictive fluid management had an effect on oliguria, acute renal failure (ARF) and fluid intake. We also investigated whether targeting oliguria reversal affected these parameters.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analyses. We used the definitions of restrictive and conventional fluid management as provided by the individual studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present), and relevant reviews and articles.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with adult patients undergoing surgery comparing restrictive fluid management with a conventional fluid management protocol and also reporting the occurrence of postoperative ARF.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies with a total of 1594 patients. There was insufficient evidence to associate restrictive fluid management with an increase in oliguria [restrictive 83/186 vs. conventional 68/230; odds ratio (OR) 2.07; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97 to 4.44;P = 0.06;I² = 23.7%;N_studies = 5]. The frequency of ARF in restrictive and conventional fluid management was 20/795 and 20/799, respectively (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.92;P = 0.8;I² = 17.5%;N_studies = 15). There was no statistically significant difference in ARF occurrence between studies targeting oliguria reversal and not targeting oliguria reversal (OR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.22;P = 0.088). Intraoperative fluid intake was 1.89 l lower in restrictive than in conventional fluid management when not targeting oliguria reversal (95% CI, −2.59 to −1.20 l;P < 0.001;I² = 96.6%;N_studies = 7), and 1.63 l lower when targeting oliguria reversal (95% CI, −2.52 to −0.74 l;P < 0.001;I² = 96.6%;N_studies = 6).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that, even though event numbers are small, perioperative restrictive fluid management does not increase oliguria or postoperative ARF while decreasing intraoperative fluid intake, irrespective of targeting reversal of oliguria or not.