The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perioperative Outcomes of Major Hepatic Resections Under Low Central Venous Pressure Anesthesia: Blood Loss, Blood Transfusion, and the Risk of Postoperative Renal Dysfunction
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have previously demonstrated that maintenance of a low central venous pressure (LCVP) combined with extrahepatic control of venous outflow reduced the overall blood loss during major hepatic resections. This study examined the overall outcomes and, in particular, renal morbidity associated with a large series of consecutive major liver resections performed with this approach. In addition, the rationale for the anesthetic management to maintain LCVP was carefully reviewed. STUDY DESIGN: All major hepatectomies performed between December 1991 and April 1997 were reviewed. The prospective Hepatobiliary Surgical Service database was merged with the Memorial Hospital Laboratory and Blood Bank databases to yield the nature of the operation, blood loss, blood product transfusions, outcomes, and levels of preoperative, postoperative, and discharge serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen. RESULTS: A total of 496 LCVP-assisted major liver resections were performed, with no intraoperative deaths and an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.8%. The median blood loss was 645 mL. Sixty-seven percent of the patients did not require perioperative blood transfusion during surgery and the immediate 12 hours after surgery. The median number of blood transfusions was 2. Only 3% of the patients experienced a persistent and clinically significant increase in serum creatinine possibly attributable to the anesthetic technique. Renal failure directly attributable to the anesthetic technique did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Major resection with LCVP allowed easy control of the hepatic veins before and during parenchymal transection. The anesthetic technique, designed to maintain LCVP during the critical stages of hepatic resection, not only helped to minimize blood loss and mortality but also preserved renal function.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Jarnagin, W. R., Gonen, M., Fong, Y., DeMatteo, R. P., Ben-Porat, L., Little, S., Corvera, C., Weber, S., & Blumgart, L. H. (2002) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200210000-00001 · Cited by 1,258
Self-citationBelghiti, J., Hiramatsu, K., Benoist, S., Massault, P. P., Sauvanet, A., & Farges, O. (2000) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00261-1 · Cited by 1,051
Sarmiento, J. M., Heywood, G., Rubin, J., Ilstrup, D. M., Nagorney, D. M., & Que, F. G. (2003) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/s1072-7515(03)00230-8 · Cited by 773
Joliat, G., Kobayashi, K., Hasegawa, K., Thomson, J., Padbury, R., Scott, M., Brustia, R., Scatton, O., Tran Cao, H. S., Vauthey, J., et al. (2023) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-022-06732-5 · Cited by 330
Update on Bispectral Index monitoring
Johansen, J. W. (2006) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2005.08.004 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Melendez, J. A., Arslan, V., Fischer, M. E., Wuest, D., Jarnagin, W. R., Fong, Y., & Blumgart, L. H.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 187
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 620-625
- ISSN
- 1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2166170256
- Cited by
- 576
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perioperative Outcomes of Major Hepatic Resections Under Low Central Venous Pressure Anesthesia: Blood Loss, Blood Transfusion, and the Risk of Postoperative Renal Dysfunction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1072-7515(98)00240-3
- The paper
- Melendez, J. A., Arslan, V., Fischer, M. E., Wuest, D., Jarnagin, W. R., Fong, Y., & Blumgart, L. H. (1998). Perioperative Outcomes of Major Hepatic Resections Under Low Central Venous Pressure Anesthesia: Blood Loss, Blood Transfusion, and the Risk of Postoperative Renal Dysfunction. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(98)00240-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.