Effects of Pringle manoeuvre and ischaemic preconditioning on haemodynamic stability in patients undergoing elective hepatectomy: a randomized trial. Ischemic preconditioning improves postoperative outcome after liver resections: a randomized controlled study. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing intermittent portal triad clamping versus ischemic preconditioning with continuous clamping for major liver resection.
The Pringle manoeuvre and ischaemic preconditioning are applied to prevent blood loss and ischaemia-reperfusion injury, respectively, during liver surgery. In this prospective clinical trial we report on the intraoperative haemodynamic effects of the Pringle manoeuvre alone or in combination with ischaemic preconditioning.
                Patients (n=68) were assigned randomly to three groups: (i) resection with the Pringle manoeuvre; (ii) with ischaemic preconditioning before the Pringle manoeuvre for resection; (iii) without pedicle clamping.
                Following the Pringle manoeuvre the mean arterial pressure increased transiently, but significantly decreased after unclamping as a result of peripheral vasodilation. Ischaemic preconditioning improved cardiovascular stability by lowering the need for catecholamines after liver reperfusion without affecting the blood sparing benefits of the Pringle manoeuvre. In addition, ischaemic preconditioning protected against reperfusion-induced tissue injury.
                Ischaemic preconditioning provides both better intraoperative haemodynamic stability and anti-ischaemic effects thereby allowing us to take full advantage of blood loss reduction by the Pringle manoeuvre. Clamping of the portal triad (Pringle maneuver) prevents blood loss during liver resection, but leads to liver injury upon reperfusion. Ischemic preconditioning (IP) has been shown to protect the liver against prolonged ischemic injury in animal models. However, the clinical value of this procedure has not yet been established.
                61 Patients undergoing hepatic resection under inflow occlusion were randomized to either to receive (Group-A n = 30) or not to receive (Group-B n = 31) an IP (10 minutes of ischemia followed 10 minutes of reperfusion).
                Mean (+/- SD)/ Group-A vs. Group-B. Pringle time of 34 +/- 14 and 33 +/- 12 minutes and the extent of resected liver tissue (2.7 +/- 1.3 vs. 2.7 +/- 1.1 segments) were comparable in both groups. Complications, including death, severe liver dysfunction and biliary leakage occurred in 6 patients of Group-A vs. 14 patients of Group-B (p<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in Group-A (1.28 +/- 0.91 l vs. 1.94 +/- 0.76 l; p<0.001) with 5 vs. 15 patients requiring transfusions (p<0.01). In a multivariate analysis the duration of the Pringle maneuver (p<0.05) and the absence of preconditioning (p<0.05) were independent predictors for the occurrence of postoperative complications.
                IP protects against reperfusion injury, reduces the incidence of complications after hepatic resection under inflow occlusion and is simple to use in clinical practice. To evaluate whether ischemic preconditioning (IP) with continuous clamping or intermittent clamping (IC) of the portal triad confers better protection during liver surgery.
                IP and IC are distinct protective approaches against ischemic injury. Since both strategies proved to be superior in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to continuous inflow occlusion alone, we designed a RCT to compare IP and IC in patients undergoing major liver resection.
                Noncirrhotic patients undergoing major liver resection were randomized to receive IP with inflow occlusion (n = 36) or IC (n = 37). Primary endpoints were postoperative liver injury and intraoperative blood loss. Postoperative liver injury was assessed by peak values of AST (alanine aminotransferase) and ALT (aspartate aminotransferase), as well as the area under the curve (AUC) of the postoperative transaminase course. Secondary endpoints included resection time, the need of blood transfusion, ICU, and hospital stay as well as postoperative complications and mortality.
                Both groups were comparable regarding demographics, ASA score, type of hepatectomy, duration of inflow occlusion (range, 30-75 minutes), and resection surface. The transection-related blood loss was 146 versus 250 mL (P = 0.008), and when standardized to the resection surface 1.2 versus 1.8 mL/cm (P = 0.01) for IP and IC, respectively. Although peak AST, AUCAST, and AUCALT were lower for IC, the differences did not reach statistical significance. Overall (42% vs. 38%) and major (33 vs. 27%) postoperative complications as well as median ICU (1 vs. 1 day) and hospital stay (10 vs. 11 days) were similar between both groups.
                Both IP and IC appear to be equally effective in protecting against postoperative liver injury in noncirrhotic patients undergoing major liver resection. However, IP is associated with lower blood loss and shorter transection time. Therefore, both strategies can be recommended for noncirrhotic patients undergoing liver resection.
Currently, there is no evidence to suggest a protective effect of ischaemic preconditioning in non-cirrhotic patients undergoing liver resection under continuous vascular occlusion. Ischaemic preconditioning reduces the blood transfusion requirements in patients undergoing liver resection.