Back

Fluid administration guided by inferior vena cava ultrasound before spinal anaesthesia may reduce post procedural hypotension rate

Favre, M.; Ceruti, S.; Biggiogero, M.; Musiari, M.; Glotta, A.; Gimigliano, I.; Aguirre, J.; Borgeat, A.; Saporito, A.

2021-06-22 anesthesia
10.1101/2021.06.20.21258944 medRxiv
Show abstract

PURPOSEThis study was conducted to estimate the incidence of hypotension after spinal anaesthesia after inferior vena cava ultrasound (IVCUS) guided volaemic optimization compared with a control group in patients undergoing elective surgery. According to ESICM guidelines, hypotension was defined as two systolic arterial pressure (SAP) measurements < 80 mmHg and / or a mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 60 mmHg, or a drop in SAP of more than 50 mmHg or more than 25% from baseline, or a decrease in MAP by more than 30% from baseline and / or clinical signs/symptoms of inadequate perfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODSFrom May 2014 to February 2019, a prospective, controlled, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group trial was performed in our tertiary hospital. In the IVCUS group (I, 132 patients) and passive leg raising test group (L, 148 patients), a pre-anaesthesia volume optimization was achieved following a fluid response protocol. In control group (C, 149 patients), no specific intervention was performed. RESULTS474 patients were collected. In group I, hypotension rate was 35%. In group L hypotension rate was 44%. In group C hypotension rate was 46%. An 11% reduction rate in hypotension (95% CI -1 to -24%, P=0.047) was observed between the group I and the group C. A 2% reduction rate in hypotension (95% CI -3 to -5%, P=0.428) was observed between group L and the group C. Total fluid amount administered was greater in the I group I than in the group C (593 ml versus 453 ml, P=0.015) and greater in the group L than the group C (511 ml versus 453 ml, P=0.11). CONCLUSIONIVCUS guided fluid optimisation decrease the incidence of arterial hypotension after spinal anaesthesia.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.