Article

Therapeutic influence of 20 % albumin versus 6% hydroxyethylstarch on extravascular lung water in septic patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Trauma Hospital Brno, Czech Republic.
Hepato-gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 0.91). 01/2009; 56(96):1622-8.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

7 Followers
 · 
133 Views
  • [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 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess whether resuscitation with albumin-containing solutions, compared with other fluids, is associated with lower mortality in patients with sepsis. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Medical Editors Trial Amnesty Register. Prospective randomized clinical trials of fluid resuscitation with albumin-containing solutions compared with other fluid resuscitation regimens, which included a population or subgroup of participants with sepsis, were included. Assessment of the validity of included studies and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors. For the primary analysis, the effect of albumin-containing solutions on all-cause mortality was assessed by using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. Seventeen studies that randomized 1977 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There were eight studies that included only patients with sepsis and nine where patients with sepsis were a subgroup of the study population. There was no evidence of heterogeneity, I² = 0%. The use of albumin for resuscitation of patients with sepsis was associated with a reduction in mortality with the pooled estimate of the odds ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence limits 0.67-1.0, p = .047). In this meta-analysis, the use of albumin-containing solutions for the resuscitation of patients with sepsis was associated with lower mortality compared with other fluid resuscitation regimens. Until the results of ongoing randomized controlled trials are known, clinicians should consider the use of albumin-containing solutions for the resuscitation of patients with sepsis.
    Critical care medicine 02/2011; 39(2):386-91. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181ffe217 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent research suggests that 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 is one of the most frequently used resuscitation fluids worldwide. The retraction of studies evaluating its use necessitates a reevaluation of available evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of unretracted randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of 6% HES 130/0.4 with other colloid or crystalloid solutions on mortality, acute kidney injury/failure, and bleeding in acutely ill or perioperative patients. A sensitivity analysis including the data from retracted studies was also conducted. Overall, 36 studies reporting 2149 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 (n = 541) have been retracted. Of the remaining 25 studies, there was a high risk of bias in 17 studies; 19 studies (n = 1246) were conducted in perioperative patients and 6 (n = 362) in critically ill patients. Sixteen studies reported mortality: 104 deaths in 1184 participants. The relative risk of death was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.64-1.42, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.73); including the retracted studies added a further 14 deaths and the relative risk was 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.63-1.34, I(2) = 0%, P = 0.95). The data reporting acute kidney injury, red blood cell transfusion, and bleeding were of insufficient quantity and quality and not amenable to meta-analysis. Published studies are of poor quality and report too few events to reliably estimate the benefits or risks of administering 6% HES 130/0.4. This same conclusion is reached with or without the retracted studies. Given the widespread use of 6% HES 130/0.4, high-quality trials reporting a large number of events are urgently required.
    Anesthesia and analgesia 01/2012; 114(1):159-69. DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e318236b4d6 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more