Key result
Individualized cardiac index-guided therapy fails to reduce 7-day composite adverse outcomes versus routine care.
Why the study?
It remains unclear if intraoperative hemodynamic therapy should be guided by cardiac index in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery.
Does individualized cardiac index-guided hemodynamic therapy improve outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery?
RCT (n=1,095)
Single-blind
superiority
Yes
Does individualized cardiac index-guided hemodynamic therapy improve outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery?
Among high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, individualized cardiac index-guided hemodynamic therapy did not significantly reduce early postoperative complications or mortality compared with routine care.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support individualized cardiac index-guided therapy in high-risk abdominal surgery; confirms no reduction in early postoperative complications versus routine care.
Importance It remains unclear if intraoperative hemodynamic therapy should be guided by cardiac index. Objective To evaluate whether individualized cardiac index–guided hemodynamic therapy vs routine hemodynamic therapy improves outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, single-blind, superiority randomized clinical trial enrolled high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery between October 8, 2023, and October 25, 2025, at 12 university medical centers in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, and Spain. The date of last follow-up was January 15, 2026. Interventions Patients were randomized to individualized cardiac index–guided hemodynamic therapy targeting the patient’s preoperative resting cardiac index vs routine hemodynamic therapy (with blinded cardiac index monitoring). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of acute kidney injury, acute myocardial injury, severe infectious complications, nonfatal cardiac arrest, or death within the first 7 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome within the first 7 postoperative days. Results Of the 1128 patients enrolled, 1111 were randomized and 1095 were included in the primary analysis (median age, 67 years [IQR, 59-74 years]; 49.4% were female). The primary outcome occurred in 243 of 549 patients (44.3%) in the individualized cardiac index–guided hemodynamic therapy group vs 256 of 546 patients (46.9%) in the routine hemodynamic therapy group (relative risk, 0.94 [95.1% CI, 0.83-1.08]; P = .38). There were no between-group differences for the incidence of the individual components of the primary outcome within the first 7 postoperative days. Conclusions and Relevance Among high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery, individualized cardiac index–guided hemodynamic therapy targeting the patient’s preoperative resting cardiac index did not reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of acute kidney injury, acute myocardial injury, severe infectious complications, nonfatal cardiac arrest, or death within the first 7 postoperative days compared with routine hemodynamic therapy. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05648279
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saugel et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in High-risk elective major abdominal surgery (n=1,095). Individualized cardiac index-guided hemodynamic therapy vs. Routine hemodynamic therapy was evaluated on Composite of acute kidney injury, acute myocardial injury, severe infectious complications, nonfatal cardiac arrest, or death within the first 7 postoperative days (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.08, p=.38). Individualized cardiac index-guided hemodynamic therapy did not reduce 7-day composite adverse outcomes vs routine therapy (44.3% vs 46.9%; RR 0.94, 95.1% CI 0.83-1.08; P=.38).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: