Effects of gelatine and medium molecular weight starch as priming fluid in cardiopulmonary bypass - a randomised controlled trial

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Perfusion (Impact Factor: 1.08). 02/2007; 22(1):57-61. DOI: 10.1177/0267659107077903
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Perioperative volume replacement after cardiopulmonary bypass is complicated by post-bypass systemic inflammatory process. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of using two different colloid solutions as priming fluids in cardiopulmonary bypass. The study's primary end point was to measure the amount of fluid replacement needed during and post-cardiopulmonary bypass; blood loss, change in blood profile and intraocular pressure were secondary end points, used as measures of plasma oncotic pressures. Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting were recruited. Both patients and surgeons were blinded to receive either Gelofusine or Voluven as priming fluids. At fixed intervals during cardiopulmonary bypass, the patients had their intraocular pressures measured. Intra and postoperative fluid replacement was in the form of 4.5% human albumin and the amount was recorded for each subject. The result did not show any significant differences in the amount of fluid needed to be replaced, in blood loss or in blood profile between the two groups. However, it showed an increase in intraocular pressure in both groups once cardiopulmonary bypass commenced. The average intraocular pressure was higher in the Gelofusine group compared to the Voluven group. The significant increase in intraocular pressure measurements in the Gelofusine group compared to the Voluven group support the hypothesis that Voluven maintains the plasma oncotic pressure better and reduces fluid shift.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Since the advent of cardiopulmonary bypass, many efforts have been made to avoid the complications related with it. Any component of the pump participates in occurrence of these adverse events, one of which is the type of prime solution. In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 with a commonly used balanced electrolyte solution on postoperative outcomes following coronary bypass surgery. Methods Two hundred patients undergoing elective coronary bypass surgery were prospectively studied. The patients were randomized in to two groups. First group received a balanced electrolyte solution and the second group received 6% hydoxyethyl starch 130/0.4 as prime solution. The postoperative outcomes of the patients were studied. Results The mean age of the patients was 61.81 ± 10.12 in the crystalloid group whereas 61.52 ± 9.29 in the HES group. There were 77 male patients in crystalloid group and 74 in HES group. 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 did not have any detrimental effects on renal and pulmonary functions. The intensive care unit stay and postoperative hospital length of stay were shorter in hydroxyethyl starch group (p < 0.05 for each). Hydroxyethyl starch did not increase postoperative blood loss, amount of blood and fresh frozen plasma used, but it decreased platelet concentrate requirement. It did not have any effect on occurrence of post-coronary bypass atrial fibrillation (p > 0.05). Conclusions 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 when used as a prime solution did not adversely affect postoperative outcomes including renal functions and postoperative blood transfusion following coronary bypass surgery.
    Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 04/2013; 8(1):71. DOI:10.1186/1749-8090-8-71 · 3.05 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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionRecent studies in septic patients showed that adverse effects of hydroxyethyl starches (HES) possibly outweigh their benefits in severely impaired physiological haemostasis. It remains unclear whether this also applies to patient populations that are less vulnerable. In this meta-analysis we evaluated the impact of various HES generations in patients undergoing cardiac surgery on safety and efficacy endpoints.Methods We searched the databases PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register for randomised controlled trials (RCT) in English or German language comparing HES to any other colloid or crystalloid during open heart surgery.ResultsBlood loss and transfusion requirements were higher for older starches with mean molecular weights more than 200 kDa compared to other volume substitutes. In contrast, this effect was not observed with latest generation tetrastarches (130/0.4), which even performed better when compared to albumin (blood loss of tetrastarch versus albumin: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34; 95% CI -0.63, -0.05; P =0.02; versus gelatin -0.06; 95% CI -0.20, 0.08; P =0.39; versus crystalloids: -0,05; 95% CI -0.20, 0.10; P =0.54). Similar results were found for transfusion needs. Length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital were significantly shorter with tetrastarches compared to gelatin (intensive care unit: SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.15, -0.05; P =0.0002) and crystalloids (Hospital: SMD -0.52; 95% CI -0.90, -0.14; P =0.007).Conclusions This meta-analysis of RCTs could not identify safety issues with tetrastarches compared with other colloid or crystalloid solutions in terms of blood loss, transfusion requirements or hospital length of stay in cardiac surgery. The safety data on coagulation with older starches raises some issues that need to be addressed in future trials.
    Critical care (London, England) 12/2014; 18(6):656. DOI:10.1186/s13054-014-0656-0