Key result
Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy benefits high-risk surgical patients but adds uncertain value beyond ERAS for intermediate-risk cases.
Why the study?
Recent neutral pragmatic trials and the integration of fluid optimisation into ERAS protocols have created uncertainty regarding whether GDHT retains clinical value, which patients benefit, and what appropriate targets are.
Does goal-directed haemodynamic therapy reduce post-operative complications in high-risk surgical patients compared to standard care or ERAS?
Design
Narrative review
Authors
Loading...
May support GDHT in ERAS protocols for high-risk surgery; leaves open incremental value amid neutral recent trials and definitional heterogeneity.
Does goal-directed haemodynamic therapy reduce post-operative complications in high-risk surgical patients compared to standard care or ERAS?
Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy remains beneficial for high-risk surgical patients, but its added value over standard ERAS protocols in intermediate-risk patients is unclear.
Giglio et al. (2026) conducted a review in High-risk surgical patients. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDHT) vs. Standard care or Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes was evaluated. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy retains clinical value for high-risk surgical patients, but its added benefit in intermediate-risk populations beyond well-implemented ERAS remains uncertain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: