Perioperative Fluid Management Strategies in Major Surgery: A Stratified Meta-Analysis

Corcoran, Tomas MB, BCh, BAO, MRCPI, FCARCSCI, MD, FCICM*; Emma Joy Rhodes, Julia MBBS (Hons)*; Clarke, Sarah MBBS (Hons); Myles, Paul S. MB, BS, MPH, MD, FCARCSCI, FANZCA, FRCA; Ho, Kwok M. MPH, PhD, FRCP, FCICM§

Anesthesia & Analgesia:
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e318240d6eb
Critical Care, Trauma, and Resuscitation
Chinese Language Editions

BACKGROUND: Both “liberal” and “goal-directed” (GD) therapy use a large amount of perioperative fluid, but they appear to have very different effects on perioperative outcomes. We sought to determine whether one fluid management strategy was superior to the others.

METHODS: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of GD or restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy (LVR) in major adult surgery from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed (1951 to April 2011), and Cochrane controlled trials register without language restrictions. Indirect comparison between the GD and LVR strata was performed.

RESULTS: A total of 3861 patients from 23 GD RCTs (median sample size = 90, interquartile range [IQR] 57 to 109) and 1160 patients from 12 LVR RCTs (median sample size = 80, IQR36 to 151) were considered. Both liberal and GD therapy used more fluid compared to their respective comparative arm, but their effects on outcomes were very different. Patients in the liberal group of the LVR stratum had a higher risk of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 4.5), pulmonary edema (RR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 13), and a longer hospital stay than those in the restrictive group (mean difference [MD] 2 days, 95% CI 0.5 to 3.4). Using GD therapy also resulted in a lower risk of pneumonia (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) and renal complications (0.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9), and a shorter length of hospital stay (MD 2 days, 95% CI 1 to 3) compared to not using GD therapy. Liberal fluid therapy was associated with an increased length of hospital stay (4 days, 95% CI 3.4 to 4.4), time to first bowel movement (2 days, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3), and risk of pneumonia (RR ratio 3, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.8) compared to GD therapy.

CONCLUSION: Perioperative outcomes favored a GD therapy rather than liberal fluid therapy without hemodynamic goals. Whether GD therapy is superior to a restrictive fluid strategy remains uncertain.

In Brief

Published ahead of print January 16, 2012

Author Information

From the *Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine and; Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia; Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; and §Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, and School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

Tomas Corcoran is currently affiliated with School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia. Julia Emma Joy Rhodes is currently affiliated with Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding: In-house funding.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Reprints will not be available from the authors.

Address correspondence to Tomas Corcoran, MB, BCh, BAO, MRCPI, FCARCSCI, MD, FCICM, Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Level 4, North Block, Wellington Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000. Address e-mail to

Accepted October 25, 2011

Published ahead of print January 16, 2012

Article Outline

Perioperative fluid therapy has been studied extensively, but the optimal strategy remains controversial and uncertain. Much of the current debate surrounds the type of fluids administered (colloid versus crystalloid), the total volume administered (restrictive versus liberal [LVR]), and whether the administration of fluids should be guided by hemodynamic goals (goal directed [GD] versus not goal directed).1,2 Although guidelines have been produced to guide clinical practice, the evidence base for these recommendations remains questionable.3 Evidence suggests that perioperative fluid balance has a substantial direct impact on outcomes.4 Administering a large amount of IV fluid in the perioperative period is a common clinical practice. Although fluid loading may expand intravascular space, improve organ perfusion or tissue oxygenation,5,6 and reduce minor postoperative complications in laparoscopic surgery,7 excessive fluid may also increase some perioperative complications.8

More recently, fluid restriction has been used as part of fast-track surgery aiming at reducing length of stay compared to liberal use of fluid.9 A systematic review has concluded that liberal use of fluid leading to a fluid overloaded state should be avoided in major surgery.10 Establishing what exactly constitutes an excessive amount of fluid is difficult because the absolute amount of fluid administered varied substantially among the included trials, making its conclusion difficult to implement in clinical practice.11

Several meta-analyses have suggested that individualized GD therapy can reduce organ-specific complications in the acutely ill12 and in those undergoing major surgery.11,13,14 The increased amount of fluid administered to these patients to achieve the predefined hemodynamic goals was indeed very similar to the amount of fluid used for patients who were treated with a liberal fluid strategy in the LVR trials.15 As such, the absolute amount of perioperative fluid administered may not be a major determinant of perioperative outcomes and titration of fluid according to a certain hemodynamic goal appears to be pivotal in improving perioperative outcomes.

We hypothesized that liberal use of perioperative fluid therapy without hemodynamic goals is not equivalent to GD fluid therapy, and conducted a stratified meta-analysis to assess whether these 2 approaches of managing perioperative fluid therapy would have different effects on the outcomes of patients undergoing major surgery.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Systematic Literature Search

We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1950 to July 2009, via Ovid), EMBASE (1980 to July 2009, via Ovid), the Cochrane controlled trial register (second issue 2009), and PubMed (1951 to July 2009) with guidance from a research librarian. Each database was searched separately to improve the functionality and to allow mapping to relevant subject headings. The strategy used validated methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and the QUORUM statement.16,17 Search terms included combinations of the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): fluid therapy; surgical procedures, operative; perioperative care; postoperative complications; hemodynamics; colloids; isotonic solutions; crystalloid (or the closest relevant subject heading in each database), as well as combinations with the keywords: fluid*, *esophageal Doppler, goal-directed, Swan-Ganz, inotrop*, liberal, restrictive, pulse pressure variation, optimisation/optimization. Subject headings were then exploded to include all relevant subheadings but limited to humans, and there were no language restrictions. Two researchers (J.R. and S.C.) independently screened the articles by their titles and abstracts to identify eligible studies. All references of the identified articles were hand searched to avoid missing relevant trials. Any new study added also had its reference list manually searched. Finally, the gray literature was examined, comprising abstracts from the annual proceeding of the American Society of Anesthesiology, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.18 The preliminary search was repeated in April 2011 to avoid missing the latest randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Study Selection, Data Extraction, and Quality Assessment

All published and unpublished studies that met all of the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: (a) RCT; (b) evaluation of different fluid amounts administered during and after surgery (standard/liberal fluid amount compared with restrictive) or evaluation of fluid administration strategies guided by conventional hemodynamic variables compared with GD fluid therapy. A therapy was considered GD therapy if it targeted a validated and objectively measurable hemodynamic variable, such as cardiac output, FTc on esophageal Doppler, or pulse pressure variation, other than conventional perioperative measures such as arterial blood pressure, urine output, or central venous pressure. (c) The study population underwent elective surgery or emergency surgery during which substantial systemic inflammatory response was not expected; and (d) the studies defined mortality, length of stay, or organ-specific complications as endpoints.

Studies using inotropic drugs as part of the fluid strategies aiming at optimizing a certain predefined hemodynamic goal were also included. Studies examining purely biochemical and laboratory endpoints, pediatric trials (age <18 years old), studies comparing different types of fluids, and studies comparing endoscopic against laparoscopic techniques were excluded. We also excluded trials that exclusively studied cardiac, neurosurgical, obstetric, trauma, burns, or critically ill patients. Two researchers (J.R. and S.C.) independently examined and recorded the trial characteristics and outcomes, using a predesigned data abstraction form. This abstraction form was used to record information regarding the quality of the trial such as allocation concealment, randomization, blinding, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The grading of allocation concealment was based on the Cochrane approach, that is, adequate, uncertain, or clearly inadequate. Authors of the primary studies were contacted, when possible, if information was missing or unclear. Quality assessment was performed using previously validated scoring systems.19,20

Back to Top | Article Outline
Definition of Study Groups and Outcome Parameters

Studies were grouped into 2 strata, standard therapy with hemodynamic goals versus GD [GD stratum] and liberal versus restrictive [LVR stratum], in this meta-analysis. The primary outcome was postoperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were organ-specific complications, recovery of bowel function (time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, and return to oral diet), and length of hospital stay. The organ-specific complications assessed included cardiac (cardiac failure, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmia), pulmonary (respiratory failure, pulmonary edema, pneumonia, and pleural effusion), and incidence of wound infections and gastrointestinal complications (bowel obstruction, anastomotic leak, ileus). In contrast to previous studies,11 we did not create an amalgamated or composite end-point of all cause-morbidity comprising the total numbers of patients in each study who experienced at least 1 complication to avoid the problem of double-counting patients who had more than 1 complication. In studies that compared 2 different strategies of fluid therapy (e.g., GD and liberal groups) with a restrictive group, we included both comparisons as individual studies.

Subgroup analysis was performed for GD stratum to determine whether the modality of GD therapy (pulmonary artery catheter, esophageal Doppler, preload responsiveness, and others) influenced the observed differences in outcome. When information relating to continuous variables was supplied as median and range, we used a validated method to estimate the mean and SD.21 To compare the volumes of fluids administered between trials, we multiplied any colloidal solution administered by 1.4 to achieve an approximation of hemodynamic equivalence.22 We included both intraoperative and postoperative fluids, where possible, in this study.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical Analysis

Difference in continuous outcomes is expressed as the mean difference [MD], using a random-effects inverse variance approach. Difference in categorical outcomes is expressed as risk ratio [RR], using the Mantel–Haenszel random-effects method.23,24 The presence of heterogeneity between trials was assessed by the χ2 statistics and the extent of inconsistency between the trials due to differences in case mix, study designs, and treatment protocols was assessed by I2 statistics.25 An I2 >40% was regarded as having significant heterogeneity in this study. Meta-regression was not used because of a relatively low event rate in the primary outcome in most of the pooled studies. All P values were 2-sided, a P value <0.05 was taken as significant, and all analyses were conducted by Review Manager for Windows (version 5.0.24, Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

The overall estimates of the 2 strata of trials (LVR stratum and GD stratum) were compared to assess whether the outcomes were different when both strategies used a large amount of perioperative fluid compared to their respective comparative arm in the trials.26 Their relative difference was reported as relative risk ratio (RRR).

Sensitivity analyses were conducted by restricting the analysis to trials that had both double-blind and adequate allocation concealment, or trials that examined patients undergoing open abdominal surgery only. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot using the risk of pneumonia as an end-point. “Trim and fill” method (Comprehensive Meta Analysis, version 2.2.034, 2006, Biostat, Englewood, NJ) was used to adjust for any publication bias.27

Back to Top | Article Outline


Characteristics of the Included Studies

Twenty-four (23 published RCTs and 1 conference abstract) GD therapy studies including 3861 patients (median sample size = 90, interquartile range [IQR] 57 to 109) from 10 countries were identified and subject to meta-analysis2850 (GD stratum) (Fig. 1). One study that was retracted was excluded.51 Twelve studies on LVR fluid therapy involving 1160 patients (median sample size = 80, [IQR] 36 to 151) from 9 countries were also identified and subject to meta-analysis8,5262 (LVR stratum).

Seven GD trials38,42,44,46,47,49,51 and 6 non-GD trials8,5355,60,61 were double-blind and had adequate allocation concealment. The median Jadad scores of all trials and GD trials were 3 (IQR 2 to 4) and 3 (IQR 2 to 5), respectively. The characteristics of the studies and their interventions are summarized in Table 1.

Back to Top | Article Outline
LVR Stratum

Patients in the liberal groups received a larger amount of intraoperative and total perioperative fluid than patients in the restrictive groups, predominantly due to a larger amount of intraoperative crystalloid (MD 1570 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 986 to 2154). Both pneumonia (RR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 4.5, P = 0.04) and pulmonary edema (RR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 13, P = 0.03) were more common in the liberal groups (Figs. 2A and 2B). The time taken to first bowel movement (MD 0.8 day, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.5), passage of flatus (MD 0.5 day, 95% CI 0.1 to 1) (Figs. 3A and 3B), and length of hospital stay (MD 2 days, 95% CI 0.5 to 3.4) were also longer in the liberal group (Fig. 4A), although there was significant heterogeneity in the latter outcome (I2 = 94%). The incidences of wound infection, myocardial infarction, renal complications, wound dehiscence, and mortality (RR 1.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.6) were not different between patients who were treated with liberal and restrictive therapy (Fig. 5A).

Back to Top | Article Outline
GD Stratum

Patients in the GD group also received a larger amount of intraoperative and total perioperative fluid than patients in the non-goal-directed group, and this was accounted for by a larger amount of intraoperative colloid (MD 467 mL, 95% CI 331 to 603). There was significant heterogeneity in the length of hospital stay between the included trials, and when pooled, patients in the GD group had a shorter hospital stay than those managed without using specific hemodynamic goals (MD 2 days, 95% CI 1 to 3) (Fig. 4b). Pneumonia (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) and renal complications (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) were also less common in the GD groups (Figs. 6A and 6B), and the time taken to first bowel movement (MD 1 day, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2) and resumption of normal diet (MD 1.4 days, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.9) was also shorter after GD therapy (Figs. 7A and 7B). The incidence of noninfective pulmonary complications, wound infection, sepsis, myocardial infarction, pulmonary edema, arrhythmias, transfusion requirements, anastomotic leak, or mortality (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.4) were similar between the 2 groups (Fig. 5B). There were no differences in most outcomes, including risk of acute renal failure, between studies that used different hemodynamic goals of GD therapy (Fig. 8).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Comparing the GD and LVR Strata

When the 2 strata of trials were compared indirectly, liberal use of perioperative fluid without using any hemodynamic goal was associated with an increased length of hospital stay (MD 4 days, 95% CI 3.4 to 4.4), time to first bowel movement (MD 2 days, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3), and risk of pneumonia (RRR 3, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.8) compared to using GD therapy. Mortality (RRR 2, 95% CI 0.6 to 6.5), wound infection (RRR 2, 95% CI 0.8 to 3.9), and renal failure (RRR 0.8, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.2) were, however, not significantly different between liberal and GD therapy. Restricting the analysis to trials studying open abdominal procedures only did not alter the results significantly (mortality: RRR 3, 95% CI 0.6 to 18; acute renal failure: RRR 1, 95% CI 0.1 to 18).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Sensitivity Analysis and Publication Bias

Restricting the analysis of the LVR stratum to higher-quality studies did not change the mortality results (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.1 to 15) or wound infection (RR1.1, 95% CI 0.4, 2.8). Difference in hospital stay did, however, become insignificant after excluding lower-quality studies (MD −0.1 day, 95% CI −1 to 0.9; P = 0.9).

Restricting the analysis of the GD stratum to higher-quality studies did not change the results of GD fluid therapy on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.7) or wound infection (RR1.1, 95% CI 0.3 to 4.7) compared to the non-GD therapy. Hospital stay remained significantly shorter for those patients who received GD fluid therapy (MD −0.1 day, 95% CI −1 to 0.9; P = 0.9) compared to non-GD fluid therapy.

Using pneumonia as an end-point, the funnel plot suggests that there may be a small publication bias favoring small positive studies using GD therapy (Fig. 9), but the beneficial effect of GD therapy on risk of pneumonia remained unchanged after the trim and fill adjustment (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.9, P = 0.026). Publication bias was not apparent among the LVR studies, and the risk of pneumonia remained unchanged after the trim and fill adjustment, favoring restricted fluid therapy (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9).

Back to Top | Article Outline


The principal findings of this meta-analysis were that (i) GD fluid therapy reduced renal complications, pneumonia, time to first bowel movement, resumption of normal diet and length of stay compared to non-GD therapy; (ii) a restrictive fluid strategy reduced the incidence of pulmonary edema and pneumonia, time to first bowel movement, and the length of stay compared to liberal fluid therapy without using hemodynamic goals; (iii) both patients randomized to have GD fluid strategy and liberal fluid therapy without hemodynamic goals received more perioperative fluid than those managed with non-GD therapy and a restrictive fluid strategy, respectively; (iv) although both GD and liberal fluid therapy both used a large amount of perioperative fluid, their effects on perioperative outcomes were different; patients in the GD groups had a shorter length of stay, time to recovery of gastrointestinal function, and a lower incidence of pneumonia compared to those in the liberal groups; (v) no specific fluid management strategy was associated with an improvement in mortality; and (vi) significant heterogeneity in continuous outcome was observed, but publication bias was not apparent.

The cardinal discrepancy in perioperative outcomes between studies using GD and liberal fluid strategies requires careful consideration. In the first instance, our results suggest that some form of GD therapy may be better than liberal use of IV fluid without hemodynamic goals. Restricting our analysis to higher-quality studies did not change the positive association between GD therapy and improvement in perioperative outcomes. This result is, perhaps, not surprising, because individualized fluid therapy according to the clinical condition of the patients should, at least theoretically, avoid the problem of excessive resuscitation or underresuscitation. It may also be that GD monitoring gives information on fluid responsiveness, hence indicating when a fluid bolus is needed for organ perfusion,63 as opposed to the risk of fluid accumulation from unnecessary excessive fluid.64 The ability to avoid both hyper- and hypovolemia is challenging,10,65 and our limited data did not suggest that one form of hemodynamic goal is better than the other.

Second, studies that used GD strategies administered a larger amount of colloid, and liberal strategies used more crystalloid fluids. Although a large RCT on critically ill patients has shown that outcomes after using crystalloid were comparable to albumin-based colloid fluid,22 a similar conclusion cannot be reached for patients undergoing major surgery, because trials comparing colloids and crystalloids on perioperative patients are all underpowered to detect clinically important benefits and risks. Third, although our results showed that GD therapy may be superior to not using hemodynamic goals by simply using a liberal amount of fluids, we must interpret these results with caution because the primary outcome, hospital mortality, was not different despite reduced complications.

This study has several methodological strengths. First, previous meta-analyses have restricted their focus to a specific GD modality or surgical subgroup. Meta-analyses of the use of esophageal Doppler as a component of GD therapy has suggested an improvement in outcomes when applied to a subgroup of patients undergoing colonic surgery13,6668 or a broader group of patients undergoing major elective, cardiac, or trauma surgery.69 Our results differ from these previous meta-analyses. We sought to exclude studies on procedures (e.g., trauma, cardiac, sepsis) that would induce a very strong inflammatory response than that observed in elective or emergent surgical procedure. A dramatic perturbation of hemodynamic physiology is an important confounder that may undermine meta-analysis of this intervention.10 Second, we have included data from the gray literature, used a conservative random-effects model analysis, and did not amalgamate the total numbers of complications as a composite end-point to reduce the risk of double-counting and false positive results.70 Third, we have included studies that used any form of advanced hemodynamic monitoring as part of the GD therapy. Apart from a slightly more precise signal in the reduction of length of hospital stay with the use of esophageal Doppler, we found that all forms of hemodynamic monitoring appeared to be equally effective in the reductions in perioperative complications.

This meta-analysis also has some limitations. First, there was significant heterogeneity in the continuous outcomes. This is not unexpected because, in general, continuous outcomes are associated with a larger variance. Furthermore, heterogeneity in the continuous outcomes can also be explained by the differences in case mix, standard management of the patients, and the trial design among the included studies. For example, of the GD trials examined, the interventions began preoperatively in 7 trials, intraoperatively in 14 and postoperatively in 2 trials. Second, although many promising trials were initially identified, most were excluded for failing to meet the strict inclusion criteria of this study. Furthermore, many trials were single-center trials, and the total sample size may still have been too small to detect a clinically important difference in mortality. With 3800 patients, the sample size only had a power of 72% to detect a reduction in hospital mortality from 2% to 1%. Third, the types of fluid used between the 2 strata of studies were different. GD therapy trials used predominantly colloids, whereas LVR trials used predominantly crystalloids. Concern has been expressed in relation to the potential toxicity of certain colloids,7 with some authorities advising against their use outside of the context of clinical trials.71 Finally, we have assumed that the large amount of fluid used in the GD therapy and liberal therapy was the only common denominator between the 2 strata of studies so that they could be compared indirectly. Such extrapolations will have some inherent limitations, and the RRRs obtained should be interpreted as hypothesis generating.

In summary, our study has shown that both GD fluid therapy and liberal use of fluid without using hemodynamic goals used a large amount of perioperative fluid, but the perioperative outcomes after such therapies differed significantly, favoring the use of specific hemodynamic goals to titrate fluid therapy. With the limited data available, significant uncertainty remains concerning the relative benefits of GD and restrictive fluid strategies, or the superiority of one modality of hemodynamic monitoring over another. An adequately powered factorial-designed RCT of GD versus non-GD and liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies, controlling for specific subgroups of surgery, will be needed to resolve the controversial issue of optimal perioperative fluid management strategy.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Name: Tomas Corcoran, MB, BCh, BAO, MRCPI, FCARCSCI, MD, FCICM.

Contribution: This author helped design the study, conduct the study, analyze the data, and write the manuscript.

Attestation: Tomas Corcoran has seen the original study data, reviewed the analysis of the data, approved the final manuscript, and is the author responsible for archiving the study files.

Name: Julia Emma Joy Rhodes, MBBS (Hons).

Contribution: This author helped design the study, conduct the study, analyze the data, and write the manuscript.

Attestation: Julia Emma Joy Rhodes has seen the original study data, reviewed the analysis of the data, and approved the final manuscript.

Name: Sarah Clarke, MBBS (Hons).

Contribution: This author helped design the study, conduct the study, analyze the data, and write the manuscript.

Attestation: Sarah Clarke has seen the original study data, reviewed the analysis of the data, and approved the final manuscript.


Contribution: This author helped analyze the data and write the manuscript.

Attestation: Paul S. Myles has seen the original study data, reviewed the analysis of the data, and approved the final manuscript.

Name: Kwok M. Ho, MPH, PhD, FRCP, FCICM.

Contribution: This author helped design the study, conduct the study, analyze the data, and write the manuscript.

Attestation: Kwok M. Ho has seen the original study data, reviewed the analysis of the data, and approved the final manuscript.

This manuscript was handled by: Steven L. Shafer, MD.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Bundgaard-Nielsen M, Secher NH, Kehlet H. ‘Liberal' vs. ‘restrictive' perioperative fluid therapy—a critical assessment of the evidence. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53:843–51
2. Chappell D, Jacob M, Hofmann-Kiefer K, Conzen P, Rehm M. A rational approach to perioperative fluid management. Anesthesiology 2008;109:723–40
3. Soni N. British Consensus Guidelines on Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Adult Surgical Patients (GIFTASUP): Cassandra's view. Anaesthesia 2009;64:235–8
4. Lobo DN, Macafee DA, Allison SP. How perioperative fluid balance influences postoperative outcomes. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2006;20:439–55
5. Sear JW. Kidney dysfunction in the postoperative period. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:20–32
6. Arkilic CF, Taguchi A, Sharma N, Ratnaraj J, Sessler DI, Read TE, Fleshman JW, Kurz A. Supplemental perioperative fluid administration increases tissue oxygen pressure. Surgery 2003;133:49–55
7. Holte K, Klarskov B, Christensen DS, Lund C, Nielsen KG, Bie P, Kehlet H. Liberal versus restrictive fluid administration to improve recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, double-blind study. Ann Surg 2004;240:892–9
8. Brandstrup B, Tonnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R, Hjortso E, Ording H, Lindorff-Larsen K, Rasmussen MS, Lanng C, Wallin L, Iversen LH, Gramkow CS, Okholm M, Blemmer T, Svendsen PE, Rottensten HH, Thage B, Riis J, Jeppesen IS, Teilum D, Christensen AM, Graungaard B, Pott F. Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg 2003;238:641–8
9. White PF, Kehlet H, Neal JM, Schricker T, Carr DB, Carli F. The role of the anesthesiologist in fast-track surgery: from multimodal analgesia to perioperative medical care. Anesth Analg 2007;104:1380–96
10. Holte K, Kehlet H. Fluid therapy and surgical outcomes in elective surgery: a need for reassessment in fast-track surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2006;202:971–89
11. Rahbari NN, Zimmermann JB, Schmidt T, Koch M, Weigand MA, Weitz J. Meta-analysis of standard, restrictive and supplemental fluid administration in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2009;96:331–41
12. Kern JW, Shoemaker WC. Meta-analysis of hemodynamic optimization in high-risk patients. Crit Care Med 2002;30:1686–92
13. Walsh SR, Tang T, Bass S, Gaunt ME. Doppler-guided intra-operative fluid management during major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract 2008;62: 466–70
14. Giglio MT, Marucci M, Testini M, Brienza N. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy and gastrointestinal complications in major surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth 2009;103:637–46
15. Joshi GP. Intraoperative fluid restriction improves outcome after major elective gastrointestinal surgery. Anesth Analg 2005;101: 601–5
16. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896–900
17. The Cochrane collaboration. In: Higgins JPT, Green S eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.2 (updated September 2009) (online). Available at:
18. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 2000;356:1228–31
19. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.1. (updated September 2008) (online). Available at:
20. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12
21. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:13
22. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, French J, Myburgh J, Norton R. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2247–56
23. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959;22:719–48
24. Greenland S, Robins J. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985;41:55–68
25. Matthews JN, Altman DG. Interaction 3: how to examine heterogeneity. BMJ 1996;313:862
26. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003;326:219
27. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455–63
28. Bender JS, Smith-Meek MA, Jones CE. Routine pulmonary artery catheterization does not reduce morbidity and mortality of elective vascular surgery: results of a prospective, randomized trial. Ann Surg 1997;226:229–36
29. Benes J, Chytra I, Altmann P, Hluchy M, Kasal E, Svitak R, Pradl R, Stepan M. Intraoperative fluid optimization using stroke volume variation in high risk surgical patients: results of prospective randomized study. Crit Care 2010;14:R118
30. Berlauk JF, Abrams JH, Gilmour IJ, O'Connor SR, Knighton DR, Cerra FB. Preoperative optimization of cardiovascular hemodynamics improves outcome in peripheral vascular surgery. A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 1991;214:289–97
31. Bonazzi M, Gentile F, Biasi GM, Migliavacca S, Esposti D, Cipolla M, Marsicano M, Prampolini F, Ornaghi M, Sternjakob S, Tshomba Y. Impact of perioperative haemodynamic monitoring on cardiac morbidity after major vascular surgery in low risk patients. A randomised pilot trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2002;23:445–51
32. Buettner M, Schummer W, Huettemann E, Schenke S, van Hout N, Sakka SG. Influence of systolic-pressure-variation-guided intraoperative fluid management on organ function and oxygen transport. Br J Anaesth 2008;101:194–9
33. Conway DH, Mayall R, Abdul-Latif MS, Gilligan S, Tackaberry C. Randomised controlled trial investigating the influence of intravenous fluid titration using oesophageal Doppler monitoring during bowel surgery. Anaesthesia 2002;57:845–9
34. Donati A, Loggi S, Preiser JC, Orsetti G, Munch C, Gabbanelli V, Pelaia P, Pietropaoli P. Goal-directed intraoperative therapy reduces morbidity and length of hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients. Chest 2007;132:1817–24
35. Gan TJ, Soppitt A, Maroof M, el-Moalem H, Robertson KM, Moretti E, Dwane P, Glass PS. Goal-directed intraoperative fluid administration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesiology 2002;97:820–6
36. Harten J, Crozier JE, McCreath B, Hay A, McMillan DC, McArdle CS, Kinsella J, Crozier JEM. Effect of intraoperative fluid optimisation on renal function in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery: a randomised controlled pilot study (ISRCTN 11799696). Int J Surg 2008;6:197–204
37. Lopes MR, Oliveira MA, Pereira VO, Lemos IP, Auler JO Jr, Michard F. Goal-directed fluid management based on pulse pressure variation monitoring during high-risk surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 2007;11:R100
38. Noblett SE, Snowden CP, Shenton BK, Horgan AF. Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Br J Surg 2006;93:1069–76
39. Pearse R, Dawson D, Fawcett J, Rhodes A, Grounds RM, Bennett ED. Early goal-directed therapy after major surgery reduces complications and duration of hospital stay. A randomised, controlled trial [ISRCTN38797445]. Crit Care 2005;9:R687–93
40. Ramsingh D, Gamboa J, Applegate R. Evaluation of a goal directed protocol in low-moderate risk patients having major abdominal surgery. ASA 2010;A1137
41. Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, Knox L, Pineo GF, Doig CJ, Laporta DP, Viner S, Passerini L, Devitt H, Kirby A, Jacka M. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med 2003;348:5–14
42. Senagore AJ, Emery T, Luchtefeld M, Kim D, Dujovny N, Hoedema R. Fluid management for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective, randomized assessment of goal-directed administration of balanced salt solution or hetastarch coupled with an enhanced recovery program. Dis Colon Rectum 2009;52:1935–40
43. Shoemaker WC, Appel PL, Kram HB, Waxman K, Lee TS. Prospective trial of supranormal values of survivors as therapeutic goals in high-risk surgical patients. Chest 1988;94:1176–86
44. Sinclair S, James S, Singer M. Intraoperative intravascular volume optimisation and length of hospital stay after repair of proximal femoral fracture: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1997;315:909–12
45. Szakmany T, Toth I, Kovacs Z, Leiner T, Mikor A, Koszegi T, Molnar Z. Effects of volumetric vs. pressure-guided fluid therapy on postoperative inflammatory response: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:656–63
46. Venn R, Steele A, Richardson P, Poloniecki J, Grounds M, Newman P. Randomized controlled trial to investigate influence of the fluid challenge on duration of hospital stay and perioperative morbidity in patients with hip fractures. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:65–71
47. Wakeling HG, McFall MR, Jenkins CS, Woods WG, Miles WF, Barclay GR, Fleming SC. Intraoperative oesophageal Doppler guided fluid management shortens postoperative hospital stay after major bowel surgery. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:634–42
48. Wenkui Y, Ning L, Jianfeng G, Weiqin L, Shaoqiu T, Zhihui T, Tao G, Juanjuan Z, Fengchan X, Hui S, Weiming Z, Jie-Shou L. Restricted peri-operative fluid administration adjusted by serum lactate level improved outcome after major elective surgery for gastrointestinal malignancy. Surgery 2010;147:542–52
49. Wilson J, Woods I, Fawcett J, Whall R, Dibb W, Morris C, McManus E. Reducing the risk of major elective surgery: randomised controlled trial of preoperative optimisation of oxygen delivery. BMJ 1999;318:1099–103
50. Ziegler DW, Wright JG, Choban PS, Flancbaum L. A prospective randomized trial of preoperative “optimization” of cardiac function in patients undergoing elective peripheral vascular surgery. Surgery 1997;122:584–92
51. Mayer J, Boldt J, Mengistu AM, Rohm 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
52. Gonzalez-Fajardo JA, Mengibar L, Brizuela JA, Castrodeza J, Vaquero-Puerta C. Effect of postoperative restrictive fluid therapy in the recovery of patients with abdominal vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;37:538–43
53. Holte K, Foss NB, Andersen J, Valentiner L, Lund C, Bie P, Kehlet H. Liberal or restrictive fluid administration in fast-track colonic surgery: a randomized, double-blind study. [Erratum appears in Br J Anaesth 2008 Feb;100(2):284]. Br J Anaesth 2007;99:500–8
54. Holte K, Kristensen BB, Valentiner L, Foss NB, Husted H, Kehlet H. Liberal versus restrictive fluid management in knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind study. Anesth Analg 2007;105:465–74
55. Kabon B, Akca O, Taguchi A, Nagele A, Jebadurai R, Arkilic CF, Sharma N, Ahluwalia A, Galandiuk S, Fleshman J, Sessler DI, Kurz A. Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration does not reduce the risk of surgical wound infection. Anesth Analg 2005;101:1546–53
56. Lobo DN, Bostock KA, Neal KR, Perkins AC, Rowlands BJ, Allison SP. Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359:1812–8
57. MacKay G, Fearon K, McConnachie A, Serpell MG, Molloy RG, O'Dwyer PJ. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of postoperative intravenous fluid restriction on recovery after elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2006;93:1469–74
58. McArdle GT, McAuley DF, McKinley A, Blair P, Hoper M, Harkin DW. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial of restrictive versus standard fluid regime in elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Surg 2009;250:28–34
59. Muller S, Zalunardo MP, Hubner M, Clavien PA, Demartines N. A fast-track program reduces complications and length of hospital stay after open colonic surgery. Gastroenterology 2009;136:842–7
60. Nisanevich V, Felsenstein I, Almogy G, Weissman C, Einav S, Matot I. Effect of intraoperative fluid management on outcome after intraabdominal surgery. Anesthesiology 2005;103:25–32
61. Vermeulen H, Hofland J, Legemate DA, Ubbink DT. Intravenous fluid restriction after major abdominal surgery: a randomized blinded clinical trial. Trials 2009;10:50
62. Hubner M, Schafer M, Demartines N, Muller S, Maurer K, Baulig W, Clavien PA, Zalunardo MP Impact of restrictive intravenous fluid replacement and combined epidural analgesia on perioperative volume balance and renal function within a fast track program. J Surg Res 2010 . [Epub ahead of print]
63. Rehm M, Orth V, Kreimeier U, Thiel M, Haller M, Brechtelsbauer H, Finsterer U. Changes in intravascular volume during acute normovolemic hemodilution and intraoperative retransfusion in patients with radical hysterectomy. Anesthesiology 2000;92:657–64
64. Rehm M, Haller M, Orth V, Kreimeier U, Jacob M, Dressel H, Mayer S, Brechtelsbauer H, Finsterer U. Changes in blood volume and hematocrit during acute preoperative volume loading with 5 albumin or 6% hetastarch solutions in patients before radical hysterectomy. Anesthesiology 2001;95:849–56
65. Bellamy MC. Wet, dry or something else? Br J Anaesth 2006;97:755–7
66. Price JD, Sear JW, Venn RM Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004: CD003004
67. Abbas SM, Hill AG. Systematic review of the literature for the use of oesophageal Doppler monitor for fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia 2008;63:44–51
68. Walsh SR, Tang TY, Farooq N, Coveney EC, Gaunt ME. Perioperative fluid restriction reduces complications after major gastrointestinal surgery. Surgery 2008;143:466–8
69. Phan TD, Ismail H, Heriot AG, Ho KM. Improving perioperative outcomes: fluid optimization with the esophageal Doppler monitor, a metaanalysis and review. J Am Coll Surg 2008;207:935–41
70. Myles PS, Devereaux PJ. Pros and cons of composite endpoints in anesthesia trials. Anesthesiology 2010;113:776–8
71. Hartog CS, Bauer M, Reinhart K. The efficacy and safety of colloid resuscitation in the critically ill. Anesth Analg 2011;112:156–64
© 2012 International Anesthesia Research Society