Low central venous pressure versus acute normovolemic hemodilution versus conventional fluid management for reducing blood loss in radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Current medical research and opinion 2014-05, Vol.30 (5), p.937-943
• Main Authors: Habib, Ashraf S., Moul, Judd W., Polascik, Thomas J., Robertson, Cary N., Roche, Anthony M., White, William D., Hill, Stephen E., Nosnick, Israel, Gan, Tong J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthesia, General; Biological and medical sciences; Blood loss; Blood Loss, Surgical - prevention & control; Central venous pressure; Central Venous Pressure - physiology; Fluid management; Fluid Therapy - methods; Hemodilution; Hemodilution - methods; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Prostatectomy; Prostatectomy - methods
• ISSN: 0300-7995; 1473-4877
• DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2013.877436

Abstract Objective: To compare acute normovolemic hemodilution versus low central venous pressure strategy versus conventional fluid management in reducing intraoperative estimated blood loss, hematocrit drop and need for blood transfusion in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy under general anesthesia. Research design and methods: Patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy under general anesthesia were randomized to conventional fluid management, acute normovolemic hemodilution or low central venous pressure ( 5 mmHg). Treatment effects on estimated blood loss and hematocrit change were tested in multivariable regression models accounting for surgeon, prostate size, and all two-way interactions. Results: Ninety-two patients completed the study. Estimated blood loss (mean ± SD) was significantly lower with low central venous pressure (706 ± 362 ml) compared to acute normovolemic hemodilution (1103 ± 635 ml) and conventional (1051 ± 714 ml) groups (p = 0.0134). There was no difference between the groups in need for blood transfusion, or hematocrit drop from preoperative values. The multivariate model predicting estimated blood loss showed a significant effect of treatment (p = 0.0028) and prostate size (p = 0.0323), accounting for surgeon (p = 0.0013). In the model predicting hematocrit change, accounting for surgeon difference (p = 0.0037), the treatment effect depended on prostate size (p = 0.0007) with the slope of low central venous pressure differing from the other two groups. Hematocrit was predicted to drop more with increased prostate size in acute normovolemic hemodilution and conventional groups but not with low central venous pressure. Key limitations: Limitations include the inability to blind providers to group assignment, possible variability between providers in estimation of blood loss, and the relatively small sample size that was not powered to detect differences between the groups in need for blood transfusion. Conclusions: Maintaining low central venous pressure reduced estimated blood loss compared to conventional fluid management and acute normovolemic hemodilution in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy but there was no difference in allogeneic blood transfusion between the groups.