Vasopressor support vs. liberal fluid administration in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap breast reconstruction

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Perioperatively, patients’ hemodynamics are modulated predominantly by intravenous fluid administration and vasoactive pharmacological support. Vasopressor agents are suspected to be detrimental on free flap survival by the cause of vasoconstriction of the pedicle with consecutive reduced overall flap perfusion and by aggravation of flap dissection.

OBJECTIVE:

A novel, standardized fluid restrictive perioperative hemodynamic management was assessed for its feasibility in clinical practice in free flap patients undergoing breast reconstruction.

METHODS:

Patients were randomized to two perioperative regimens with different fluid and vasopressor limits. The primary endpoint regarded flap survival. Secondary endpoints included surgery times, time of patient ambulation and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS:

There was one total flap failure with liberal fluid administration (LFA). No total or partial flap failure was noted in the fluid restrictive regimen with norepinephrine administration up to 0.04μg/kg/min (FRV). No delay regarding operation time (p = 0.217), patient mobilization (p = 0.550) or hospital discharge (p = 0.662) was registered in the FRV study subpopulation compared to LFA.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results of this prospective interventional trial could not detect any negative impact of vasopressors, neither for the primary endpoint of flap survival nor for the overall patient outcome. The fear of vasopressor associated flap complications has led to a traditional liberal fluid administration, which failed to demonstrate any benefits when compared to a fluid restrictive vasopressor strategy.

Keywords

Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap free flap breast reconstruction vasopressors norepinephrine liberal fluid administration

1 Introduction

Microsurgical tissue transfer has become a standard treatment for soft tissue as well as bone reconstruction over the past two decades. In the context of autologous breast reconstruction, the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap has evolved into a first-choice procedure of tissue transfer [1, 2]. The DIEP flap for breast reconstruction consists of the free transfer of abdominal pannus to reconstruct the breast mound during several hours of general anesthesia.

It is well-known, that regulation of blood pressure is vital to maintain optimal end-organ oxygen delivery [3, 4]. Perioperatively, patient hemodynamics are modulated predominantly by intravenous fluid administration and vasoactive pharmacological support. Yet, the extensive use of vasopressor agents (e.g., norepinephrine) for blood pressure management during microvascular procedures is still a subject of controversy [5, 6]. Vasopressor agents are suspected to be detrimental on flap survival by the cause of vasoconstriction of the pedicle with consecutive reduced overall flap perfusion and by aggravation of flap harvest [7]. Du et al. could show that an increase of the mean arterial pressure from <60 mmHg to 60–90 mmHg under norepinephrine did not lead to an improvement of the microcirculation [8]. The surgeon’s fear of vasopressor associated flap complications has therefore led to a traditional liberal fluid administration (LFA) in order to avoid higher dosages of vasoactive substances. However, this strategy of increased fluid intake may frequently result in positive fluid balances with corresponding complications such as interstitial fluid accumulation, associated decrease in flap oxygenation and possible impacts on blood coagulation [9]. In fact, emerging evidence suggests that excessive perioperative fluid administration may have negative impacts on multiple aspects of recovery after major surgery including flap failure [6 , 9–18].

Nevertheless, to date no trial compared LFA to fluid restriction and vasopressor support (FRV) in patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction.

In this prospective study two perioperative regimens with different fluid and vasopressor limits for the regulation of systemic blood pressure were investigated regarding their possible detrimental effects on flap survival in patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap.

2 Material and methods

2.1 Study design

The study is an interventional, randomized clinical trial. Study start date was March 13, 2017. The last patient was enrolled on October 10, 2017.

The patients were recruited during a pre-assessment visit at the study center, where written and oral information was provided. Upon written informed consent participants were randomized into one of the two study arms by manual randomization (LFA vs. FVC). Participants as well as surgeons were blinded for treatment allocation. The investigator was not blinded.

2.2 Surgical technique

Preoperatively, the fusiform flap is marked with the superior incision placed just above the umbilicus, extending laterally and finishing adjacent to the anterior superior iliac spines. The lower aspect of the incision is placed transversely at the level of the caesarian section, gently curving lateral, meeting the upper marking [19].

In the operating room the patient is placed in the supine position. Two surgical teams simultaneously perform abdominal flap harvest and preparation of the thoracic recipient vessels following mastectomy in immediate breast reconstruction. The flap is harvested on a single perforator of the medial or lateral row as previously described [19]. The internal mammary artery and vein are consistently chosen as recipient vessels. Conventional end-to-end arterial anastomosis is performed with interrupted 8-0 monofilament sutures. A coupler device (Synovis Micro Companies Alliance, Birmingham, AL, USA) is used for venous anastomosis (diameter ranging from 2.0 to 3.5 mm).

Intermittent pneumatic compression is applied for the lower limbs to improve venous circulation and prevent deep venous thrombosis during the procedure.

2.3 Anesthetics and intervention

The study compared two regimens to maintain systemic circulation with different fluid and vasopressor limits as presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Intervention variables

Regimen FRV LFA

Crystalloids (max.) 2.0 ml/kg/h 8.0 ml/kg/h

Norepinephrine (max.) 0.15μg/kg/min 0.04μg/kg/min

Regimen	FRV	LFA
Crystalloids (max.)	2.0 ml/kg/h	8.0 ml/kg/h
Norepinephrine (max.)	0.15μg/kg/min	0.04μg/kg/min

(FRV – fluid restriction and vasopressor support, LFA – liberal fluid administration).

Throughout patients received balanced crystalloid solutions (Jonosteril, Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany) via central venous access. No colloids were administered. The vasopressor agent used was norepinephrine (Arterenol, Sanofi-Aventis, Frankfurt, Germany).

In both study subpopulations, anesthesia was induced with propofol 1.5–2.0 mg/ kg (Braun, Melsungen, Germany) and sufentanil 0.25–0.5μg/ kg (hameln pharma plus GmbH, Hameln, Germany). Orotracheal intubation was facilitated with atracurium 0.3–0.6 mg/ kg (Hikma Farmacêutica, Terrugem, Portugal). Anesthesia was maintained using sevoflurane (Baxter Dräger, Vapor 2000) and intermittent administration of sufentanil.

The intraoperative systolic target blood pressure was above 100 mmHg. An arterial catheter was placed into the radial artery to ensure continuous blood pressure assessment.

A Foley catheter was used for urinary drainage control and simultaneous monitoring of core body temperature to prevent hypothermia.

2.4 Outcome measures

The primary endpoint was defined as total flap failure until day 5 postoperative. Secondary outcome variables were revision surgery (e.g., due to thromboembolic complication or hematoma), surgery times, time of patient ambulation and length of hospital stay.

2.5 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Voluntarily participation was offered to all patients who desired autologous breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap at the recruiting center. Immediate as well as secondary breast reconstructions were equally enrolled in this study.

Exclusion criteria were denial of written consent, high grade obesity (BMI >35 kg/m²) and contraindications for one of the applied regimens.

2.6 Statistical analysis

Data is expressed as arithmetic mean±standard deviation (SD) as well as median values with interquartile range (IQR). Gaussian distribution of data was confirmed by Shapiro-Wilk-test, p > 0.05.

Statistical significances were analyzed by unpaired Student’s t-test. P-values of <0.05 were considered significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24.0.0.0 software (SPSS Inc., USA).

2.7 Ethical approval and trial registration

The study was conducted upon approval and in accordance with the University of Regensburg institutional ethics committee (Reference no. 16-101-0293).

The study has been registered on the international ClinicalTrials.gov database (Reference no. NCT03118024).

3 Results

3.1 Patient variables

Twelve patients were enrolled in the study (n = 12). Five participants were randomly assigned to the FRV group (n₁ = 6), 6 patients were enrolled in the LFA group (n₂ = 6). One patient was excluded from the study retrospectively, as the intraoperative perforator quality was poor, which necessitated intraoperative conversion to a transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (TRAM) (n_corr = 11, n_2corr = 5, n_1corr = n₁ = 6).

The study cohort comprised homogenously distributed demographics across the subpopulations as demonstrated above (Table 2).

Table 2
Patient variables

Regimen FRV LFA

n 6 5

Age (y) 47.3±10.6 56.2±13.0

BMI (kg/m²) 25.7±3.3 30.0±3.0

ASA-Score 1.8±0.4 1.6±0.5

Regimen	FRV	LFA
n	6	5
Age (y)	47.3±10.6	56.2±13.0
BMI (kg/m²)	25.7±3.3	30.0±3.0
ASA-Score	1.8±0.4	1.6±0.5

3.2 Primary study outcome

One total flap failure was observed in the LFA study arm due to postoperative arterial occlusion. No flap loss or partial flap failure was noted in the FRV regimen.

3.3 Secondary study outcomes (Table 3)

Mean operation time accounted for 389 min (t = 389±52). With 371 min (t₁ = 371±57) in the FRV group and 411 min (t₂ = 411±38) with LFA, there was a trend towards faster operation time in the fluid restrictive regimen, however, values were not significantly different (p = 0.217). Immediate (n₁ = 7) and secondary reconstructions (n₂ = 4) were included.

Patients were mobilized as fast as 1.3 days (x₁ = 1.3±0.5) postoperatively with FRV, and 1.6 days (x₂ = 1.6±0.9) postoperatively in the LFA population (p = 0.550). One patient with intraoperative vasoconstrictor restriction was postoperatively monitored for 72 hours at the intermediate care unit because of polyuria.

The period of hospitalization accounted for 7.2 postoperative days (h₂ = 7.2±0.4) in the LFA group and for 7.0 days (h₁ = 7.0±0.9) with FRV (p = 0.662).

Table 3
Secondary outcome results

FRV LFA p-values

Mean±SD Median±ICR Mean±SD Median±ICR

Surgery times (min) 371±57 377±100 411±38 413±62 0.217

Time of patient ambulation (days postoperative) 1.3±0.5 1.0±1.0 1.6±0.9 1.0±1.5 0.550

Length of hospital stay (d) 7.0±0.9 7.0±2.0 7.2±0.4 7.0±0.5 0.662

	FRV	LFA	p-values
Surgery times (min)	371±57	377±100	411±38	413±62	0.217
Time of patient ambulation (days postoperative)	1.3±0.5	1.0±1.0	1.6±0.9	1.0±1.5	0.550
Length of hospital stay (d)	7.0±0.9	7.0±2.0	7.2±0.4	7.0±0.5	0.662

There was no anastomosis-related revision but one revision surgery for hematoma evacuation beneath the flap on postoperative day 3 to prevent venous congestion in the FRV subpopulation. In the LFA group no revision was registered until postoperative day 5.

4 Discussion

To date there is a lack of data supporting the long-established fear of detrimental effects of vasoconstrictor use in microvascular surgery [20, 21]. However, emerging evidence supports a negative impact of extensive intraoperative fluid administration on medical and surgical outcome in free autologous tissue transfer [10 –13]. Nevertheless, existing data consists of retrospective reviews only, which precludes measurements of predefined dosage limits. Additionally, previous trials compared different types of reconstructive options, which makes statistical analysis and consecutive extrapolation of this retrospective data problematic.

The DIEP flap has universally become the workhorse for autologous breast reconstruction in most institutions, thus making this flap the most frequently applied free flap among currently available free tissue transfer options [1]. Further, harvest site, recipient site, flap size and conditions for flap anastomoses are highly standardized in this particular indication. Patient demographics that require DIEP flap breast reconstruction are universally analogous, as all patients are of female sex, within their fourth or fifth decade of life, in a moderately over-weighted constitution and in an adequate health condition allowing this elective microsurgical procedure. With regard to interventional studies, this uniform cohort in combination with the standardized treatment modalities of the DIEP flap provide ideal utility for the prospective direct comparison of treatment regimens.

This study comprised a LFA regimen as traditionally applied at most centers, which was compared to a novel FRV protocol. Based on best available evidence, the FRV protocol included higher intraoperative norepinephrine doses [12 , 22].

With respect to the predefined limits of vasopressor and volume administration, in this cohort both circulatory regimens allowed the constant maintenance of 100 mmHg systolic blood pressure. Most importantly, neither of the applied circulatory regimens caused hemodynamical or surgical complications perioperatively.

Nonetheless, the primary endpoint of this study was defined as the rate of flap failure until postoperative day 5. In the LFA group, one complete flap failure was detected due to arterial occlusion. According to the literature, despite progressive spread of microsurgical experience, the risk for complete failure of free microvascular flaps ranges from 5–7% [23 –28]. Whether the flap failure was owed to the LFA protocol or simple coincidence is not ultimately verifiable. However, other authors identified intraoperative volume overload as a risk factor for flap failure recently [6 , 10–13]. Fluid administration exceeding 7 L or >5.4 ml/kg/h (>130 ml/kg/day) during microvascular head and neck reconstruction was related to medical and surgical complications including flap failure [12, 13]. Further, a retrospective study in the context of free flap breast reconstructions determined the excessive intraoperative crystalloid infusion rate as an independent predictor for postoperative complications [10]. Regarding these reports, the observation of this study is in line with data of previous studies in this field and suggests a higher risk of flap failure for LFA regimens. Conversely, partial or complete flap losses could not be observed in the FRV study arm. Despite that, one revision surgery due to hematoma occurred. The revision was not related to the anastomosis and attributable to venous bloody oozing from the thoracic subcutaneous pocket.

Norepinephrine is suspected to impede perforator dissection as it mediates vasoconstriction via its action on α1-receptors of vascular endothelial cells [29]. Furthermore, prolonged surgery times are associated with higher incidence of postoperative complications [10]. Interestingly, surgery times did not differ significantly between study arms in this trial (p = 0.217). As two teams operated simultaneously, the consistent time limiting factor was ultimately flap dissection. Irrespective from simultaneous mastectomy, thoracic pocket and recipient vessel preparation had always been fully prepared before completion of flap harvest. Further, flap dissection was performed by one-out-of-two lead surgeons with equivalent microsurgical experience. With regard to operation time, vasoconstriction seems to have a negligible practical relevance according to our data.

Early postoperative mobilization has been identified as a paramount factor for morbidity and length of hospital stay [30]. Reduced intravascular volume is associated with increased orthostatic intolerance and may thereby be a hindrance for early patient ambulation [31]. Remarkably, lower intraoperative fluid volumes in the FRV regimen did not cause significant delay in postoperative mobilization of the patient (p = 0.550). The overall favorable cardiovascular condition of patients in this cohort might be one explanation for this observation. Further, strategies of goal-directed fluid management in other fields of surgery could not reduce the prevalence of orthostatic intolerance and emphasize the complexity of this phenomenon [31]. Although impaired cardiac output and peripheral resistance contribute to orthostatic intolerance, their precise pathogenic mechanisms in postoperative autonomic dysfunction are still under investigation [31 –34]. Conversely, there was a trend towards faster mobilization with FRV (x₁ = 1.2±0.4), compared to the LFA regimen (x₂ = 1.5±1.0; p = 0.665). Consequently, this is highly favorable in terms of fast-track rehabilitation, encouraging patient autonomy and reconvalescence [35].

Length of hospital stay is known to affect morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness [36]. Consequently, rapid recovery with early discharge from hospital has become a criterion for most novel therapies. The evaluation of duration of hospital stay in this study revealed a trend towards shorter length of hospital stay of 7.0 days (h₁ = 7.0±1.0) within FRV group towards 7.3 postoperative days (h₂ = 7.3±0.5) in the LFA study population. Nevertheless, this result did not withstand statistical significance (p = 0.665) when subjected to statistical analysis. Still, along with faster mobilization there is a tendency towards earlier discharge in the FRV cohort.

5 Conclusion

Several retrospective observational studies suggested detrimental effects on flap survival in free autologous tissue transfer for the extensive intraoperative administration of fluid [10 –13].

In this trial a novel, standardized fluid restrictive perioperative hemodynamic management was assessed for its feasibility in free flap patients in clinical practice. In accordance with previous data, the results of this prospective interventional trial could not detect any negative impact of vasopressors, neither for the primary endpoint of flap survival nor for the overall patient outcome. On the contrary, one complete flap failure was recorded for the LFA group. Further, fluid restriction seemed to reduce surgery time, enhance fast mobilization as well as early hospital discharge.

The fear of vasopressor associated flap complications has led to a traditional LFA, which failed to demonstrate any benefits when compared to a FRV strategy. Future studies that monitor flap perfusion during free tissue transfer procedures will hopefully further elucidate ideal vasopressor limits to define optimal conditions for microsurgery.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The publication is dedicated to the 70th birthday of Prof. F. Jung.

References

Healy

, Allen

Sr . The evolution of perforator flap breast reconstruction: Twenty years after the first DIEP flap. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2014;30(2):121–5.

Sukhova

, Muller

, Eisenmann-Klein

, Machens

, Schantz

. Quo vadis? Breast implants–current trends and new concepts. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2012;44(4):240–53.

Sigurdsson

, Thomson

. Anaesthesia and microvascular surgery: Clinical practice and research. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1995;12(2):101–22.

Hagau

, Longrois

. Anesthesia for free vascularized tissue transfer. Microsurgery. 2009;29(2):161–7.

Ibrahim

, Kim

, Rabie

, Lee

, Lin

. Vasopressors and reconstructive flap perfusion: A review of the literature comparing the effects of various pharmacologic agents. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(2):245–8.

Pattani

, Byrne

, Boahene

, Richmon

. What makes a good flap go bad? A critical analysis of the literature of intraoperative factors related to free flap failure. Laryngoscope. 2010;120(4):717–23.

Massey

, Gupta

. The effects of systemic phenylephrine and epinephrine on pedicle artery and microvascular perfusion in a pig model of myoadipocutaneous rotational flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(5):1289–99.

, Jia

, Wang

, Xing

, Jiang

, Xu

, et al. Effect of increasing mean arterial blood pressure on microcirculation in patients with cardiogenic shock supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2016. doi: 10.3233/CH-16156

Holte

, Kehlet

. Fluid therapy and surgical outcomes in elective surgery: A need for reassessment in fast-track surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202(6):971–89.

10.

Zhong

, Neinstein

, Massey

, McCluskey

, Lipa

, Neligan

, et al. Intravenous fluid infusion rate in microsurgical breast reconstruction: Important lessons learned from 354 free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(6):1153–60.

11.

Motakef

, Mountziaris

, Ismail

, Agag

, Patel

. Emerging paradigms in perioperative management for microsurgical free tissue transfer: Review of the literature and evidence-based guidelines. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):290–9.

12.

Clark

, McCluskey

, Hall

, Lipa

, Neligan

, Brown

, et al. Predictors of morbidity following free flap reconstruction for cancer of the head and neck. Head Neck. 2007;29(12):1090–101.

13.

Haughey

, Wilson

, Kluwe

, Piccirillo

, Fredrickson

, Sessions

, et al. Free flap reconstruction of the head and neck: Analysis of 241 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;125(1):10–7.

14.

Corcoran

, Rhodes

, Clarke

, Myles

, Ho

. Perioperative fluid management strategies in major surgery: A stratified meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(3):640–51.

15.

Varadhan

, Lobo

. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of intravenous fluid therapy in major elective open abdominal surgery: Getting the balance right. Proc Nutr Soc. 2010;69(4):488–98.

16.

Mythen

, Swart

, Acheson

, Crawford

, Jones

, Kuper

, et al. Perioperative fluid management: Consensus statement from the enhanced recovery partnershiPerioper Med (Lond). 2012;1:2.

17.

Myles

, Andrews

, Nicholson

, Lobo

, Mythen

. Contemporary Approaches to Perioperative IV Fluid Therapy. World J Surg. 2017.

18.

Fang

, Liu

, Yu

, Hanasono

, Zheng

, Yu

. Intraoperative use of vasopressors does not increase the risk of free flap compromise and failure in cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2017.

19.

Allen

, Treece

. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;32(1):32–8.

20.

Hiltunen

, Palve

, Setala

, Mustonen

, Berg

, Ruokonen

, et al. The effects of hypotension and norepinephrine on microvascular flap perfusion. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2011;27(7):419–26.

21.

Chen

, Nguyen

, Bar-Meir

, Hess

, Lin

, Tobias

, et al. Effects of vasopressor administration on the outcomes of microsurgical breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;65(1):28–31.

22.

Eley

, Young

, Watt-Smith

. Epinephrine norepinephrine dobutamine and dopexamine effects on free flap skin blood flow. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(3):564–70.

23.

Jones

, Kelly

, Percival

. Clinical monitoring of free flaps in the UK. Br J Plast Surg. 1999;52(1):78–9.

24.

Disa

, Cordeiro

, Hidalgo

. Efficacy of conventional monitoring techniques in free tissue transfer: An 11-year experience in 750 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(1):97–101.

25.

Geis

, Klein

, Prantl

, Dolderer

, Lamby

, Jung

. Quantitative assessment of free flap viability with CEUS using an integrated perfusion software. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2015;47(6):389–95.

26.

Schiltz

, Geis

, Kehrer

, Dolderer

, Prantl

, Taeger

. Video tutorial for clinical flap-monitoring in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(10):e1478.

27.

Geis

, Prantl

, Dolderer

, Lamby

, Mueller

, Jung

. Postoperative monitoring of local and free flaps with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)–analysis of 112 patients. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34(6):550–8.

28.

Prantl

, Fellner

, Jung

. Evaluation of free flap perfusion with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2)100e–1e.

29.

Piascik

, Perez

. Alpha1-adrenergic receptors: New insights and directions. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 2001;298(2):403–10.

30.

Kehlet

, Wilmore

. Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):189–98.

31.

Bundgaard-Nielsen

, Jans

, Muller

, Korshin

, Ruhnau

, Bie

, et al. Does goal-directed fluid therapy affect postoperative orthostatic intolerance?: A randomized trial. Anesthesiology. 2013;119(4):813–23.

32.

Jans

, Bundgaard-Nielsen

, Solgaard

, Johansson

, Kehlet

. Orthostatic intolerance during early mobilization after fast-track hip arthroplasty. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108(3):436–43.

33.

Bundgaard-Nielsen

, Jorgensen

, Ruhnau

, Secher

, Kehlet

. Orthostatic intolerance and the cardiovascular response to early postoperative mobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102(6):756–62.

34.

Mustafa

, Fessel

, Barwise

, Shannon

, Raj

, Diedrich

, et al. Dysautonomia: Perioperative implications. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(1):205–15.

35.

Kehlet

, Mogensen

. Hospital stay of 2 days after open sigmoidectomy with a multimodal rehabilitation programme. Br J Surg. 1999;86(2):227–30.

36.

Tan

, Lim

, Yek

, Ong

, Hing

, Lim

. The deep inferior epigastric perforator and pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in breast reconstruction: A comparative study. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40(3):187–91.

	FRV		LFA		p-values
	Mean±SD	Median±ICR	Mean±SD	Median±ICR
Surgery times (min)	371±57	377±100	411±38	413±62	0.217
Time of patient ambulation (days postoperative)	1.3±0.5	1.0±1.0	1.6±0.9	1.0±1.5	0.550
Length of hospital stay (d)	7.0±0.9	7.0±2.0	7.2±0.4	7.0±0.5	0.662

Vasopressor support vs. liberal fluid administration in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap breast reconstruction – a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSIONS:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Material and methods

2.1 Study design

2.2 Surgical technique

2.3 Anesthetics and intervention

Table 1 Intervention variables Regimen FRV LFA Crystalloids (max.) 2.0 ml/kg/h 8.0 ml/kg/h Norepinephrine (max.) 0.15μg/kg/min 0.04μg/kg/min

2.5 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

2.6 Statistical analysis

2.7 Ethical approval and trial registration

3 Results

3.1 Patient variables

Table 2 Patient variables Regimen FRV LFA n 6 5 Age (y) 47.3±10.6 56.2±13.0 BMI (kg/m2) 25.7±3.3 30.0±3.0 ASA-Score 1.8±0.4 1.6±0.5

3.3 Secondary study outcomes (Table 3)

5 Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

References

Table 1
Intervention variables

Regimen FRV LFA

Crystalloids (max.) 2.0 ml/kg/h 8.0 ml/kg/h

Norepinephrine (max.) 0.15μg/kg/min 0.04μg/kg/min

Table 2
Patient variables

Regimen FRV LFA

n 6 5

Age (y) 47.3±10.6 56.2±13.0

BMI (kg/m²) 25.7±3.3 30.0±3.0

ASA-Score 1.8±0.4 1.6±0.5