ISSN 2415-3060 (print), ISSN 2522-4972 (online)
  • 18 of 59
JMBS 2020, 5(5): 158–163
Clinical Medicine

Estimation of the Safety of Intraoperative Fluid Therapy during Great Abdominal Surgery in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

Lysenko V. I., Karpenko E. A., Morozova Ya. V.

The study of intraoperative fluid therapy tactics has been of great interest over the past few years, especially in people with concomitant coronary heart disease, as they make up a significant proportion of all surgical patients. The purpose of our study was to assess the risk of intraoperative myocardial damage in patients with concomitant coronary heart disease depending on the fluid regimen used based on monitoring of hemodynamic parameters, electrocardiogram and biomarkers of myocardial damage. Material and methods. The study involved 89 patients, who were divided into two groups depending on the tactics of intraoperative fluid therapy – restrictive and liberal. In order to detect cardiac complications at different stages, we assessed biomarkers of myocardial damage Troponin I, NT-proBNP by solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results and discussion. Analysis of the obtained data showed that MINS (myocardial injury in noncardiac surgery) incidents were diagnosed in 5 patients (11.1%) in the first group and in 6 patients (13.6%) in the second. In patients of both groups there was an increase in NT-proBNP in the dynamics at all stages, and in the 2nd group, with a liberal regimen of intraoperative fluid therapy, it was more pronounced. It should be noted that the obtained values of NT-proBNP in all patients did not differ significantly from those allowed for this age group; such dynamics of NT-proBNP may indicate a relative risk of complications of liberal fluid therapy in patients with baseline heart failure. One of the important points when choosing the mode of fluid therapy in patients with high cardiac risk is the assessment of the initial volemic status and careful monitoring of water balance in the perioperative period with the desire for "zero" balance. The obtained dynamics of laboratory markers of myocardial damage indicates that in patients with a significant reduction in cardiac reserves compensated for heart failure, a restrictive fluid regimen is preferable, which is also confirmed by slight changes in the concentration of biomarkers. Conclusion. Thus, the study demonstrated the relative safety of selected fluid regimens in patients with concomitant coronary heart disease without signs of congestive heart failure

Keywords: fluid therapy, cardiospecific biomarkers, ischemic heart disease, myocardial injury

Full text: PDF (Rus) 280K

  1. Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, Haynes AB, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, et al. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008; 372: 139-44.
  2. Kristensen SD, Knuuti J, Saraste A, Anker S, Bøtker HE, Hert SD, et al. 2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management. The Joint Task Force on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(35): 2383-431. PMid:25086026
  3. Fleisher LA, Fleischmann KE, Auerbach AD, Barnason SA, Beckman JA, Bozkurt B, et al. 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(22): e77-137. PMid:25091544
  4. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Eur Heart J. 2019; 40(3): 237-69.
  5. Botto F, Alonso-Coello P, Chan MT, Villar JC, Xavier D, Srinathan S, et al. Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a large, international, prospective cohort study establishing diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30- day outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2014; 120: 564-78. PMid:24534856
  6. Devereaux PJ, Xavier D, Pogue J, Guyatt G, Sigamani A, Garutti I, et al. Characteristics and short-term prognosis of perioperative myocardial infarction in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154(8): 523-528. PMid:21502650
  7. Devereaux PJ, Chan MT, Alonso-Coello P, Walsh M, Berwanger O, Villar JC, et al. Association between postoperative troponin levels and 30-day mortality among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA. 2012; 307(21): 2295-2304. PMid:22706835
  8. Holte K, Sharrock NE, Kehlet H. Pathophysiology and clinical implications of perioperative fluid excess. Br J Anaesth. 2002; 89: 622-632. PMid:12393365
  9. Feldheiser A, Aziz O, Baldini G, Cox BP, Fearon KC, Feldman LS, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: Consensus statement for anaesthesia practice. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016; 60: 289-334. PMid:26514824 PMCid:PMC5061107
  10. Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Garg AX, Kurz A, Turan A, Rodseth RN, et al. Relationship between intraoperative mean arterial pressure and clinical outcomes after noncardiac surgery: toward an empirical definition of hypotension. Anesthesiology. 2013; 119(3): 507-515. PMid:23835589
  11. Joosten A, Raj Lawrence S, Colesnicenco A, Coeckelenbergh S, Vincent JL, Van der Linden P, et al. Personalized versus protocolized fluid management using noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring (clearsight system) in patients undergoing moderate-risk abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg. 2019; 129(1): e8-12. PMid:29878939
  12. Brandstrup B. Finding the right balance. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 2335-2336. PMid:29742973