Article

Alternatives to albumin administration in hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing hepatectomy: an open, randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety.

Division of Liver Transplantation, West China Hospital, West China Medical School of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.
Chinese medical journal (Impact Factor: 1.02). 05/2011; 124(10):1458-64.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The value of artificial colloids in treating patients with liver disease is controversial. The effects of intravascular volume replacement regimens on liver function secondary to alteration of the postoperative inflammatory response are not known. In this study, we evaluated the effects of different volume replacement regimens in hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing hepatectomy to clarify whether albumin administration can be replaced by other volume replacement products.
Ninety consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma patients scheduled for hepatectomy were prospectively randomized to receive 20% human albumin (HA), 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) or lactated Ringer's solution (LR) for postoperative volume replacement. Hemodynamic, liver function and inflammatory response parameters were recorded on postoperative days one, three, and five throughout the investigation period.
Significantly less volume was required in the HA and the HES groups. Although patients in all groups had similar baseline values, the plasma osmolality was significantly higher in the HA and HES groups. Total bilirubin (TB), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increased from baseline in all groups, and did not differ significantly between groups. C-reactive protein (CRP) was significantly lower in the HES group compared with the other groups.
In hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing hepatectomy, HA can be replaced by HES or LR in well selected patients. Hemodynamic stability, liver function, and postoperative clinical outcomes could be equivalently achieved in the HES group; also, HES may exert more favorable effects on the acute phase response.

1 Follower
 · 
180 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To determine whether fluid resuscitation of acutely ill adults with 6 % hydroxyethyl starch (6 % HES 130) with a molecular weight of 130 kD and a molar substitution ratio of approximately 0.4 (6 % HES 130) compared with other resuscitation fluids results in a difference in the relative risk of death or treatment with renal replacement therapy (RRT). METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing intravascular fluids for resuscitation of hospitalised adults that reported mortality or treatment with RRT. The risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers and meta-analysis was performed using random effects. RESULTS: Thirty-five trials enrolling 10,391 participants were included. The three largest trials had the lowest risk of bias, were published (or completed) in 2012, and together enrolled 77 % of all participants. Death occurred in 928 of 4,691 patients (19.8 %) in the 6 % HES 130 group versus 871 of 4,720 (18.5 %) in the control fluid groups relative risk (RR) in the 6 % HES 130 group 1.08, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.17, I (2) = 0 %). Treatment with RRT occurred in 378 of 4,236 patients (8.9 %) in the 6 % HES 130 group versus 306 of 4,260 (7.2 %) in the control fluid group (RR in the 6 % HES 130 group 1.25, 95 % CI 1.08 to 1.44, I (2) = 0 %). CONCLUSIONS: The quality and quantity of data evaluating 6 % hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4 and 130/0.42) as a resuscitation fluid has increased in the last 12 months. Patients randomly assigned to resuscitation with 6 %HES 130 are at significantly increased risk of being treated with RRT.
    European Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 02/2013; 39(4). DOI:10.1007/s00134-013-2840-0 · 5.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Various hydroxyethyl starch (HES) preparations have been used for decades to augment blood volume. There has been concern recently regarding possible adverse outcomes when using HES in the intensive care setting, especially in patients with septic shock. However, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of HES preparations depend on their chemical composition and source material. Thus, different clinical conditions could result in differing effectiveness and safety for these preparations. Consequently, we assessed the safety of tetrastarches when used during surgery, using a formal search, that yielded 59 primary full publications of studies that met a priori inclusion criteria and randomly allocated 4529 patients with 2139 patients treated with tetrastarch compared with 2390 patients treated with a comparator. There were no indications that the use of tetrastarches during surgery induces adverse renal effects as assessed by change or absolute concentrations of serum creatinine or need for renal replacement therapy (39 trials, 3389 patients), increased blood loss (38 trials, 3280 patients), allogeneic erythrocyte transfusion (20 trials, 2151 patients; odds ratio for HES transfusion 0.73 [95% confidence interval = 0.61-0.87], P = 0.0005), or increased mortality (odds ratio for HES mortality = 0.51 [0.24-1.05], P = 0.079).
    Anesthesia and analgesia 10/2012; 116(1). DOI:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31827175da · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is controversial. In this review, we will present the current evidence for the use of HES solutions including data from recent high-quality randomized clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analyses of HES vs. control fluids show clear signals of harm including adverse effects on kidney and haemostatic function, and trends towards increased mortality. These results are mainly based on recent large randomized clinical trials comparing tetrastarch (HES 130/0.4 and HES 130/0.42) vs. crystalloid in patients in the ICU. Trials in trauma and surgical patients cannot adequately assess safety issues and do not show clear benefit with the use of HES. There is currently no firm evidence that tetrastarch has better safety profile than the former HES solutions. SUMMARY: There is no evidence for an overall beneficial effect of HES in any subgroup of critically ill patients, but there are clear signs of harm. As safer alternatives exist, we recommend that HES is no longer used in critically ill patients.
    Current opinion in critical care 06/2013; DOI:10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283632de6 · 3.18 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
3 Downloads
Available from