Skip to main content
. 2009 Oct 7;2009(4):CD008154. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008154

Marx 2000.

Methods Randomised clinical trial.
Participants Country: Germany. 
 Number randomised: initially 20, post randomisation drop outs 1, final participants number 19. 
 Mean age: 58 years. 
 Females: 8 (42.1%). 
 Cirrhotic livers: not stated. 
 Steatotic livers: not stated.
Inclusion criteria: 
 Hemihepatectomy.
Exclusion criteria: 
 1. Congestive heart failure. 
 2. Valvular heart disease. 
 3. On beta blockers or mono‐oxidase blockers. 
 4. Liver dysfunction (AST > 80 IU/L, ALT > 80 IU/L). 
 5. Renal insufficiency (creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl). 
 6. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score III to V.
Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to two groups:
Intervention group 1: administered dopexamine at 0.5 mcg/kg/min (after induction of anaesthesia until 16 hours postoperatively) (n = 9). 
 Intervention group 2: administered dopamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min (after induction of anaesthesia until 16 hours postoperatively) (n = 10).
Outcomes The outcomes reported were blood transfusion requirements, markers of liver function, and enzyme markers of liver injury.
Notes We contacted the authors for information regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment (questions sent January 2008; replies received January 2008). The authors provided this information.
Reason for drop‐out: intervention group 1: catheter in hepatic vein cut inadvertently (1).
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation? Low risk Quote: "computer generated" (author replies).
Allocation concealment? Unclear risk Quote: "sealed envelope" (author replies).
Incomplete outcome data addressed? 
 outcomes 2‐4 weeks High risk Comment: post‐randomisation drop‐outs could be related to outcomes.
Free of selective reporting? High risk Comment: important outcomes not reported.
Free from early stopping bias? Low risk Comment: sample size calculation provided and trial not stopped early.
Free from academic bias? Low risk Comment: no previous published studies of the same comparison by the trial authors.