4.3 Article

A randomised trial of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide haemodynamic optimisation in high risk patients undergoing urgent surgical repair of proximal femoral fractures (ClearNOF trial NCT02382185)

期刊

PERIOPERATIVE MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13741-019-0119-x

关键词

Hemodynamic; Cardiac Output; Femoral neck fracture

资金

  1. Edwards Lifesciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Hip fracture is a procedure with high mortality and complication rates, and there exists a group especially at risk of these outcomes identified by their Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS). Meta-analysis suggests a possible benefit to this patient group from intravascular volume optimisation. We investigated whether intraoperative fluid and blood pressure optimisation improved complications in this group. Methods Patients with a NHFS >= 5 were enrolled into this multicentre observer-blinded randomised control trial. Patients were allocated to either standard care or a combination of fluid optimisation and blood pressure control using a non-invasive system. The primary outcome was the number of patients with one or more complications in each group. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), incidence of hypotension and fluid and vasopressor usage. Results Forty-six percent of patients in the intervention group suffered one or more complications compared to the 51% in the control group (OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.49-1.36)). Per-protocol analysis improved the OR to 0.73 (95% CI 0.43-1.24). Median LOS was the same between both groups; however, the mean LOS on a per-protocol analysis was longer in the control group compared to the intervention group (23.2 (18.0) days vs. 18.5 (16.5), p = 0.047). Conclusions Haemodynamic optimisation including blood pressure management in high-risk patients undergoing repair of a hip fracture did not result in a statistically significant reduction in complications; however, a potential reduction in length of stay was seen.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据