4.1 Article

Volume Therapy and Cardiocircular Function during Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Journal

EUROPEAN SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 365-372

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000248164

Keywords

Hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy; Cytoreduction; Peritoneal carcinomatosis; Fluid therapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Surgical cytoreduction and simultaneous hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis is afflicted with a high incidence of postoperative complications. The knowledge of intraoperative volume therapy during surgery and chemotherapy is limited. On the other hand, the choice of a `liberal' or 'restrictive' regimen of fluid administration has a deep impact on the postoperative morbidity. The aim of this observational trial was to report detailed data on volume replacement and cardiocircular function during the HIPEC procedure. Methods: Eighteen consecutive patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis were enrolled. The intraoperative volume administration was observed as well as the postoperative morbidity and mortality. Cardiofunctional data were assessed by the invasive transthoracic thermodilution technique. Results: The study showed that large amounts of volume (1,240 ml h(-1); range: 810-1,570 ml h(-1)) are given during the HIPEC procedure to replace fluid loss and maintain a stable circulatory function. Signs of a hyperdynamic status during intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy were not found. Conclusions: During surgical cytoreduction and simultaneous HIPEC, large amounts of volume were administered. HIPEC in itself did not lead to an increased fluid requirement. Further prospective studies with larger populations are needed to investigate whether goal-oriented therapies and a restricted volume regimen can contribute to decrease the postoperative morbidity. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available