Perioperative Fluid Management: Goal-directed Versus Restrictive Strategy

There is no ideal "cookbook recipe" for fluid prescription that would fit every surgical patient. In this study, the investigators working hypothesis is that the adoption of an integrative algorithm for perioperative fluid and haemodynamic management would improve clinical outcome and reduce hospital resource utilization in noncardiac surgical procedures (major-to-intermediate level of stress. Two intraoperative fluid strategies will be compared: "Restrictive" vs. "goal-directed therapy (GDT)". In the GDT group, haemodynamic information will be obtained by a flow monitoring device coupled with standard heart rate and blood pressure monitoring.

The rationale of minimizing body weight gain and avoiding unnecessary fluid compensation of the "third compartment" is now well justified and achievement of supra-normal oxygen delivery values is likely not necessary in most surgical patients. Therefore,it would be tempting to adopt fluid restriction protocols given the potentials of better wound healing, faster return of bowel function and shorter hospital stay after major surgical procedures. Although dynamic flow indices of volume responsiveness have been validated in critically-ill patients, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of overzealous fluid administration in non-critically-ill patients undergoing elective surgery. To date, RCTs comparing fluid regimen ("liberal" versus "restrictive" or "liberal" versus "GDT") have yielded controversial results with no consensus regarding appropriate fluid administration in the perioperative period. Interestingly, restrictive protocols have been associated with more frequent adverse events (e.g., nausea, vomiting) following minor surgical procedures and concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of tissue hypoperfusion leading to end-organ dysfunction.