Therapeutic influence of 20 % albumin versus 6% hydroxyethylstarch on extravascular lung water in septic patients: A randomized controlled trial
Recent studies demonstrated that extravascular lung water (EVLW) is a reliable and independent marker for outcome. The primary therapeutically goal in critically ill patients is to resuscitate and retain adequate organ perfusion by fluid administration, where is necessary to achieve adequate intravascular filling, but avoid initiation of pulmonary edema.
Patients with severe sepsis were randomly allocated to a group treated with 20% Albumin 100 ml every 12 hours (ALB; n = 30) or with 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0, 4 250 ml every 6 hours (HES; n = 26). Both treatments were completed by crystalloids or norephinephrin as necessary. We analyzed amount of developed EVLW, and relation with mortality, PaO2/FiO2 and alveolo-arterial oxygen difference.
We observed significantly greater decrease of EVLW when compared with baseline during whole monitored period of 72 hours in ALB group in contrast to HES patients (p < 0.05). Despite no significant changes of EVLW in HES group, we noted improve of PaO2/FiO2 and AaDO2 in both groups. We did not observed significant difference in mortality.
The present study results show can summarize that albumin reduces in a higher amount and earlier the extravascular lung water than HES, but this reduction was not associated with improvement of oxygenation functions, which was better in HES group.
Available from: Albert Farrugia
- "Most of the included RCTs had a population above 60 years of age. The small trial of Dolecek et al., [11, 41] had a population between 40-50 years of age. The studies of Maitland et. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Fluid resuscitation is widely practiced in intensive care units for the treatment of sepsis. A comparison of the evidence base of different fluids may inform therapeutic choice.
Methods: The risks of mortality and morbidity (the need for renal replacement therapies (RRT)) were assessed in patients with severe sepsis. A network meta-analysis compared trials for crystalloids, albumin and hydroxyethyl starch (HES). A literature search of human randomized clinical trials was conducted in databases, the bibliographies of other recent relevant systematic reviews and data reported at recent conferences. Mortality outcomes and RRT data with the longest follow up period were compared. A Bayesian network meta-analysis assessed the risk of mortality and a pair-wise meta-analysis assessed RRT using crystalloids as the reference treatment.
Results: 13 studies were identified. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of mortality data in the trials demonstrated an odds-ratio (OR) of 0.90 between crystalloids and albumin, 1.25 between crystalloids and HES and 1.40 between albumin and HES. The probability that albumin is associated with the highest survival was 96.4% followed by crystalloid at 3.6%, with a negligible probability for HES. Sub-group analyses demonstrated the robustness of this result to variations in fluid composition, study source and origin of septic shock. A random-effects pairwise comparison for the risk of RRT provided an OR of 1.52 favoring crystalloid over HES.
Conclusion: Fluid therapy with albumin was associated with the highest survival benefit. The higher morbidity with HES may affect mortality and requires consideration by prescribers.
08/2013; 8(4). DOI:10.2174/15748863113089990046
Available from: Allison B Dart
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are fluid products that are commonly used in clinical practice, however they have been associated with negative effects on kidney function. This review examined the effects of HES on kidney function compared to other fluid therapies in critically ill patients. Forty-two randomised clinical trials (11,399 patients) comparing HES to another fluid therapy qualified for this review. Overall, the use of HES products was associated with a 59% increased risk of kidney failure, and a 32% increased risk of dialysis. No significant differences in effect were seen depending on the patient population studied, the type of HES solution, or the dose used. Due to the potential risks associated with HES products, alternative fluid therapies should be used.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2010; 1(1):CD007594. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007594.pub2 · 6.03 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are widely used for intravascular volume therapy in surgical, emergency, and intensive care patients. There are safety concerns with regard to coagulopathy, renal failure, pruritus, tissue storage, and mortality. Third-generation HES 130/0.4 is considered to have an improved risk profile. A common rationale for the use of HES is the belief that 3 to 4 times more crystalloid than colloid volume is needed to achieve similar hemodynamic end points. Our goal was to assess whether published studies on HES 130/0.4 resuscitation are sufficiently well designed to draw conclusions about the safety of this compound. In addition, we wanted to assess crystalloid-to-colloid fluid ratios in studies with goal-directed fluid regimen.
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials in which HES 130/0.4 is used for resuscitation.
We identified 56 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with HES 130/0.4 in. acute hypovolemia, mainly from the elective surgical setting (n = 45). Surgical studies were small-sized (median 25 patients in the HES groups, range 10 to 90) and of short duration (median 12 hours, range 0.5 to 144 hours). The median cumulative HES dose was 2465 mL (range 328 to 6229 mL), corresponding to 35 mL/kg in a 70-kg patient, the daily dose limit being 50 mL/kg. End points mostly addressed variable surrogate outcomes. Sixty percent of control fluids were other HES solutions, gelatins, or dextran, which have a similar risk profile. Without exception, these studies were not designed for clinically important safety outcomes, primarily because they were too small, used mostly inadequate control fluids, and had inappropriately short observation periods. Therefore, and also because of heterogeneity of patient groups and outcome definitions, results from these studies cannot be pooled. These studies do not allow any conclusion about the safety of HES 130/0.4. There is a common belief that 3 to 4 times more crystalloid than colloid volume is necessary to achieve similar hemodynamic effects. We found a considerably lower ratio in surgical studies (mean 1.8, SD 0.1).
In summary, the extent of fluid load reduction that can be achieved by HES 130/0.4 is overestimated. Use of older HES solutions may be associated with serious side effects, and clinicians should be aware that there is no convincing evidence that third-generation HES 130/0.4 is safe in surgical, emergency, or intensive care patients despite publication of numerous clinical studies.
Anesthesia and analgesia 02/2011; 112(3):635-45. DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31820ad607 · 3.47 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.