Intravenous fluid and electrolyte administration in elective gastrointestinal surgery: mechanisms of excessive therapy.

INTRODUCTION While clinical guidelines stress the importance of the judicious perioperative intravenous fluid administration, data show that adherence to these protocols is poor. The reasons have not been identified. We therefore audited the magnitude and indications of fluid and electrolyte administration in a teaching hospital. We hypothesised that epidural analgesia is associated with excessive fluid therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Intravenous fluid and electrolyte administration during the day of surgery and the subsequent 2 days in consecutive patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery between November 2013 and May 2014 were retrospectively audited. Timing, volumes and indications were recorded. RESULTS One hundred patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal resection were studied. Patients received 9030 ml ± 2860 ml (mean ± standard deviation) intravenous fluids containing a total of 1180 ml ± 420 mmol sodium and resulting in a cumulative fluid balance of +5120 ml ± 2510 ml; 44% ± 14% of total volumes were given in theatre. Nearly all fluid was given for maintenance, 100% (96-100%, interquartile range), with 17 patients only receiving replacement or resuscitation. Independent predictors of increased volumes included open surgery, upper gastrointestinal surgery, increased duration and epidural analgesia but not body weight. Postoperative fluid volume was the only independent predictor of postoperative complication grade (P = 0.0044). CONCLUSIONS Despite published guidelines, perioperative fluid and electrolyte administration were excessive and were associated with postoperative morbidity. Substantial volumes were administered in theatre. Nearly all administration was for maintenance, yet patients received approximately five times the amount of sodium required. Epidural analgesia was an independent predictor of fluid volumes but body weight was not.

National survey on endoscopy training in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is an important skill for both gastroenterologists and general surgeons but concerns have been raised about the provision and delivery of training. This survey aimed to evaluate and compare the delivery of endoscopy training to gastroenterology and surgical trainees in the UK. METHODS: A nationwide electronic survey was carried out of UK gastroenterology and general surgery trainees. RESULTS: There were 216 responses (33% gastroenterologists, 67% surgeons). Gastroenterology trainees attended more non-training endoscopy lists (mean: 3.0 vs 1.2) and training lists than surgical trainees (mean: 0.9 vs 0.5). A significantly higher proportion of gastroenterologists had already achieved accreditation in gastroscopy (60.8% vs 28.9%), colonoscopy (66.7% vs 1.4%) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (33.3% vs 3.0%). More gastroenterology trainees aspired to achieve accreditation in gastroscopy (97.2% vs 79.2%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (91.7% vs 70.1%) and colonoscopy (88.8% vs 55.5%) by completion of training. By completion of training, surgeons were less likely than gastroenterologists to have completed the required number of procedures to gain accreditation in gastroscopy (60.3% vs 91.3%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (64.6% vs 68.6%) and colonoscopy (60.3% vs 70.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights marked disparities between surgical and gastroenterology trainees in both aiming for and achieving accreditation in endoscopy. Without changes to the delivery and provision of training as well as clarification of the role of endoscopy training in a surgical training programme, future surgeons will not be able to perform essential endoscopic assessment of patients as part of their management algorithm.