Prospective, randomized trial comparing fluids and dobutamine optimization of oxygen delivery in high-risk surgical patients
2006

Fluids vs. Dobutamine for Oxygen Delivery in High-Risk Surgery

Sample size: 50 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Suzana M Lobo, Francisco R Lobo, Carlos A Polachini, Daniela S Patini, Adriana E Yamamoto, Neymar E de Oliveira, Patricia Serrano, Helder S Sanches, Marco A Spegiorin, Marcio M Queiroz, Antonio C Christiano Jr, Elisangela F Savieiro, Paula A Alvarez, Silvia P Teixeira, Geni S Cunrath

Primary Institution: Division of Critical Care Medicine, Departments of Internal Medicine, Anesthesiology and Surgery, Medical School – FUNFARME and Hospital de Base, São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, Brazil

Hypothesis

The study aimed to investigate the effect of DO2I optimization with fluids or with fluids and dobutamine on the 60-day hospital mortality and incidence of complications.

Conclusion

Using dobutamine for hemodynamic optimization leads to better outcomes compared to fluids alone in high-risk surgical patients.

Supporting Evidence

  • Cardiovascular complications were significantly more frequent in the volume group (52%) than in the dobutamine group (16%).
  • The 60-day mortality rates were 28% in the volume group and 8% in the dobutamine group.
  • More patients in the dobutamine group achieved the target DO2I compared to the volume group.

Takeaway

In high-risk surgery patients, giving dobutamine helps them recover better than just giving fluids.

Methodology

A randomized controlled trial was performed in 50 high-risk patients undergoing major elective surgery, comparing fluids alone to fluids and dobutamine.

Potential Biases

The volume group received more packed red blood cells, which could affect outcomes.

Limitations

Blinding was not possible, and there was a small imbalance in comorbidities between groups.

Participant Demographics

Patients were elderly with coexistent pathologies, undergoing major elective surgery.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.05

Confidence Interval

95% CI = 1.22–8.60

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/cc4913

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication