Pulse Pressure Variation-Based Intraoperative Fluid Management Versus Traditional Fluid Management for Colon Cancer Patients Undergoing Open Mass Resection and Anastomosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Bowel edema leads to decreased perfusion and oxygenation of the intestine at the anastomotic site after colonic mass resection with failure of healing and leakage. Additionally, dehydration causes bowel hypoperfusion and difficulty healing with more complications. Fluid therapy guided by dynamic monitoring of fluid response can help avoid bowel dehydration and edema with fewer complications. OBJECTIVES: The main goal of this study was to compare the effects of intraoperative fluid therapy based on pulse pressure variation (PPV) to traditional fluid therapy to maintain adequate hydration without intraoperative instability of hemodynamics and postoperative complications. METHODS: This randomized controlled study was conducted on 90 adult patients (age range: 18-70 years) undergoing elective open colonic mass resection and anastomosis at Eldemerdash Hospital, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. There were two groups of patients, namely group A (n = 45; conventional fluid management [CFM] group) and group B (n = 45; goal-guided fluid management [GGFM] group based on PPV), using randomly generated data from a computer. Intraoperative fluids and vasopressors were given using GGFM or routine care. The key tool for directing hemodynamic management in the GGFM algorithm was the fluid protocol and PPV. As a result, the outcomes were measured to include the volume of intraoperative fluid, water fraction, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: In this study, 90 patients underwent analysis. Both groups’ demographics were similar (P > 0.05). Baseline characteristics and surgical procedures did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both the amount of urine output and the intraoperative administration of crystalloids were statistically significantly higher in group A (P < 0.05). The two groups’ heart rate, mean arterial pressure and intraoperative usage of colloids and ephedrine were not statistically different (P > 0.05). Water fraction, bowel recovery, anastomotic leak, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the CFM group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I - II undergoing elective open resection of colonic mass and anastomosis, PPV-based GGFM, a less invasive tool for intraoperative fluid management, might be a better option than CFM.