Clinical outcomes of a prospective randomized comparison of bioreactance monitoring versus pulse‐contour analysis in a stroke‐volume based goal‐directed fluid resuscitation protocol in brain‐dead organ donors.

Eighty percent of brain‐dead (BD) organ donors develop hypotension and are frequently hypovolemic. Fluid resuscitation in a BD donor is controversial. We have previously published our 4‐h goal‐directed stroke volume (SV)‐based fluid resuscitation protocol which significantly decreased time on vasopressors and increased transplanting four or more organs. The SV was measured by pulse‐contour analysis (PCA) or an esophageal doppler monitor, both of which are invasive. Thoracic bioreactance (BR) is a non‐invasive portable technology that measures SV but has not been studied in BD donors. We performed a randomized prospective comparative study of BR versus PCA technology in our fluid resuscitation protocol in BD donors. Eighty‐four donors (53.1%) were randomized to BR and 74 donors to PCA (46.8%). The two groups were well matched based on 24 demographic, social, and initial laboratory factors, without any significant differences between them. There was no difference in the intravenous fluid infused over the 4‐h study period [BR 2271 ± 823 vs. PCA 2230 ± 962 mL; p =.77]. There was no difference in the time to wean off vasopressors [BR 108.8 ± 61.8 vs. PCA 150.0 ± 68 min p =.07], nor in the number of donors off vasopressors at the end of the protocol [BR 16 (28.6%) vs. PCA 15 (29.4%); p =.92]. There was no difference in the total number of organs transplanted per donor [BR 3.25 ± 1.77 vs. PCA 3.22 ± 1.75; p =.90], nor in any individual organ transplanted. BR was equivalent to PCA in clinical outcomes and provides a simple, non‐invasive, portable technology to monitor fluid resuscitation in organ donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]