Background: Appropriate perioperative fluid management is of pivotal importance to reduce postoperative complications, which impact on early and long-term patient outcome. The so-called perioperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) approach aims at customizing perioperative fluid management on the individual patients’ hemodynamic response. Whether or not the overall amount of perioperative volume infused in the context of GDT could influence postoperative surgical outcomes is unclear.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of GDT approach between study population and control group in reducing postoperative complications and perioperative mortality, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register. The enrolled studies were grouped considering the amount infused intraoperatively and during the first 24 h after the admission in the critical care unit (perioperative fluid).Results: The metanalysis included 21 RCTs enrolling 2729 patients with a median amount of perioperative fluid infusion of 4500 ml. In the studies reporting an overall amount below or above this threshold, the differences in postoperative complications were not statically significant between controls and GDT subgroup [43.4% vs. 34.2%,pvalue = 0.23 and 54.8% vs. 39.8%;pvalue = 0.09, respectively].Overall, GDT reduced the overall rate of postoperative complications, as compared to controls [pooled risk difference (95% CI) = − 0.10 (− 0.14, − 0.07); Chi₂ = 30.97;pvalue < 0.0001], but not to a reduction of perioperative mortality [pooled risk difference (95%CI) = − 0.016 (− 0.0334; 0.0014);pvalue = 0.07]. Considering the rate of organ-related postoperative events, GDT did not reduce neither renal (pvalue = 0.52) nor cardiovascular (pvalue = 0.86) or pulmonary (pvalue = 0.14) or neurological (pvalue = 0.44) or infective (pvalue = 0.12) complications.Conclusions: Irrespectively to the amount of perioperative fluid administered, GDT strategy reduces postoperative complications, but not perioperative mortality.Trial Registration: CRD42020168866; Registration: February 2020https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=168866

Bedside functional hemodynamic assessment has gained in popularity in the last years to overcome the limitations of static or dynamic indexes in predicting fluid responsiveness. The aim of this systematic review and metanalysis of studies is to investigate the reliability of the functional hemodynamic tests (FHTs) used to assess fluid responsiveness in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and operating room (OR). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were screened for relevant articles using a FHT, with the exception of the passive leg raising. The QUADAS-2 scale was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. In-between study heterogeneity was assessed through the I2 indicator. Bias assessment graphs were plotted, and Egger’s regression analysis was used to evaluate the publication bias. The metanalysis determined the pooled area under the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and threshold for two FHTs: the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) and the mini-fluid challenge (FC). After text selection, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, 7 performed in the OR, and 14 in the ICU between 2005 and 2018. The search included 805 patients and 870 FCs with a median (IQR) of 39 (25–50) patients and 41 (30–52) FCs per study. The median fluid responsiveness was 54% (45–59). Ten studies (47.6%) adopted a gray zone analysis of the ROC curve, and a median (IQR) of 20% (15–51) of the enrolled patients was included in the gray zone. The pooled area under the ROC curve for the end-expiratory occlusion test (EEOT) was 0.96 (95%CI 0.92–1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95%CI 0.74–0.94) and 0.91 (95%CI 0.85–0.95), respectively, with a best threshold of 5% (4.0–8.0%). The pooled area under the ROC curve for the mini-FC was 0.91 (95%CI 0.85–0.97). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95%CI 0.76–0.88) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.77–0.89), respectively, with a best threshold of 5% (3.0–7.0%). The EEOT and the mini-FC reliably predict fluid responsiveness in the ICU and OR. Other FHTs have been tested insofar in heterogeneous clinical settings and, despite promising results, warrant further investigations.

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is a medical condition that can lead to intracranial hypertension, negatively impacting patients’ outcomes. This review article explores the underlying pathophysiology that causes increased intracranial pressure (ICP) during hospitalization. Hydrocephalus, brain swelling, and intracranial hematoma could produce an ICP rise. Although cerebrospinal fluid withdrawal via an external ventricular drain is commonly used, ICP monitoring is not always consistently practiced. Indications for ICP monitoring include neurological deterioration, hydrocephalus, brain swelling, intracranial masses, and the need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage. This review emphasizes the importance of ICP monitoring and presents findings from the Synapse-ICU study, which supports a correlation between ICP monitoring and treatment with better patient outcomes. The review also discusses various therapeutic strategies for managing increased ICP and identifies potential areas for future research.

Aim We aim at characterising a large population of Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving CPAP outside intensive care unit (ICU), and ascertaining whether the duration of CPAP application increased the risk of mortality for patients requiring intubation. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included COVID-19 adult patients, treated with CPAP outside ICU for hypoxemic ARF from March 1^st to April 15^th, 2020. We collected demographic and clinical data, including CPAP therapeutic goal, hospital length of stay (LOS), and 60-day in-hospital mortality. Results The study includes 537 patients with a median age of 69 (IQR, 60–76) years. Males were 391 (73%). According to predefined CPAP therapeutic goal, 397 (74%) patients were included in full treatment subgroup, and 140 (26%) in the do-not intubate (DNI) subgroup. Median CPAP duration was 4 (IQR, 1–8) days, while hospital LOS 16 (IQR, 9–27) days. Sixty-day in-hospital mortality was overall 34% (95%CI, 0.304–0.384), and 21% (95%CI, 0.169–0.249) and 73% (95%CI, 0.648–0.787) for full treatment and DNI subgroups, respectively. In the full treatment subgroup, in-hospital mortality was 42% (95%CI, 0.345–0.488) for 180 (45%) CPAP failures requiring intubation, while 2% (95%CI, 0.008–0.035) for the remaining 217 (55%) patients who succeeded. Delaying intubation was associated with increased mortality [HR, 1.093 (95%CI, 1.010–1.184)]. Conclusions We described a large population of COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP outside ICU. Intubation delay represents a risk factor for mortality. Further investigation is needed for early identification of CPAP failures.

Background: Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients’ outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. Results: After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (− 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I₂ (95% CI) = 38.6% (0–66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02–0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups Conclusions: In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. Trial Registration: CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059.