Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture

Abstract

Background: Proximal femoral fracture (PFF) is a common orthopaedic emergency, affecting mainly elderly people at high risk of complications. Advanced methods for managing fluid therapy during treatment for PFF are available, but their role in reducing risk is unclear. Objectives: To compare the safety and effectiveness of different methods of perioperative fluid optimization in adult participants undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture. We considered the following methods: advanced invasive haemodynamic monitoring, such as transoesophageal Doppler and pulse contour analysis; a protocol using standard measures, such as blood pressure, urine output and central venous pressure; and usual care. Comparisons of fluid types (e.g. crystalloid vs colloid) and other methods of optimizing oxygen delivery, such as blood product therapies and pharmacological treatment with inotropes and vasoactive drugs, are considered elsewhere. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2012); and EMBASE (1980 to October 2012) without language restrictions. We ran forward and backward citation searches on identified trials. We contacted authors and searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. This is an updated version of a review published in 2004. The original search was performed in October 2003. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult participants undergoing surgical treatment for PFF, which compared any two of advanced haemodynamic monitoring, protocols using standard measures or usual care, irrespective of blinding, language or publication status. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors assessed the impact of fluid optimization interventions on outcomes of mortality, length of hospital stay, return of participant to pre-fracture accommodation and mobility at six months and adverse events in hospital. We pooled data using risk ratio or mean difference for dichotomous or continuous data, respectively, based on random-effects models. Main results: We included three RCTs with a total of 200 participants. One of these included studies was found to have a high risk of bias; no trial featured all pre-specified outcomes. We found one trial for which data are awaited for classification and two ongoing trials. One included study with low risk of bias found that compared with usual care, time to medical fitness for discharge was shorter with the use of advanced haemodynamic monitoring (mean reduction 6.20 days, 95% CI 2.3 to 10.1 days; 59 participants, one trial) and with the use of protocols that apply standard measures (mean reduction 3.9 days, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.05; 57 participants, one trial). Our results are consistent with both increased and decreased risk of mortality and adverse events in participants receiving the intervention. No data for other outcomes were available. Our results are limited by the quantity of available data. Authors' conclusions: Three studies considering a total of 200 participants reveal an absence of evidence that fluid optimization strategies improve outcomes for participants undergoing surgery for PFF. Length of hospital stay may be improved, but lack of good quality data leaves uncertainty. Further research powered to test some of these outcomes is ongoing.