Randomized clinical trial comparing the effects on renal function of hydroxyethyl starch or gelatine during aortic aneurysm surgery
ABSTRACT The optimal colloid for renal protection during abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery is not known. This study compared the effects of two hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions and gelatine on perioperative renal function.
Sixty-two patients undergoing AAA surgery were randomized to 6 per cent HES of molecular weight 200/0.62 kDa or 130/0.4 kDa, or 4 per cent gelatine for plasma expansion. Measurements were taken of serum urea and creatinine to mark glomerular filtration, urinary immunoglobulin G : creatinine ratio to mark glomerular membrane function and alpha(1)-microglobulin : creatinine ratio to mark tubular dysfunction before, and for 5 days after, surgery.
Serum urea was lower in both HES groups than the gelatine group. Serum creatinine was lower with HES 130/0.4 compared with gelatine at days 1, 2 and 5 after surgery (P = 0.020, P = 0.045 and P = 0.045 respectively). Urinary alpha(1)-microglobulin : creatinine ratio was lower with HES 200/0.62 compared with gelatine at 4 and 8 h (P < 0.050) and lower with HES 130/0.4 compared with gelatine at 4 to 24 h, and on days 4 and 5 (P < 0.050). Urinary immunoglobulin G : creatinine was lower in both HES groups compared with gelatine. There was no difference between the two starch groups.
Compared with gelatine, volume expansion with both types of HES during AAA surgery improved renal function and reduced renal injury.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) in septic patients is reported to increase the mortality and incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT). However, whether or not use of HES would induce the same result in non-septic patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains unclear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate 6% HES versus other fluids for non-septic ICU patients. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched from Pubmed, OvidSP, Embase database and Cochrane Library, published before November, 2013. A meta-analysis was made on the effect of 6% HES versus other fluids for non-septic ICU patients, including mortality, RRT incidence, bleeding volume, red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and fluid application for non-septic patients in ICU. Twenty-two RCTs were included, involving 6,064 non-septic ICU patients. Compared with the other fluids, 6% HES was not associated with decreased overall mortality (RR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.09 to 1.17; P = 0.67; I (2) = 0). There was no significant difference in RRT incidence, bleeding volume and red blood cell transfusion between 6% HES group and the other fluid groups. However, patients in HES group received less total intravenous fluids than those receiving crystalloids during the first day in ICU (SMD = -0.84; 95%CI: -1.39 to -0.30; P = 0.003, I (2) = 74 %). This meta-analysis found no increased mortality, RRT incidence, bleeding volumes or RBC transfusion in non-septic ICU patients, but the sample sizes were small and the studies generally were of poor quality.Critical care (London, England) 12/2015; 19(1):833. DOI:10.1186/s13054-015-0833-9
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Fluid resuscitation is essential for the survival of critically ill patients in shock, regardless of the origin of shock. A number of crystalloids and colloids (synthetic and natural) are currently available, and there is strong controversy regarding which type of fluid should be administered and the potential adverse effects associated with the use of these products, especially the development of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy. Recently, several clinical trials and metaanalyses have suggested the use of hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) to be associated with an increased risk of death and kidney failure, and data have been obtained showing clinical benefit with the use of crystalloids that contain a lesser concentration of sodium and chlorine than normal saline. This new information has increased uncertainty among clinicians regarding which type of fluid should be used. We therefore have conducted a review of the literature with a view to developing practical recommendations on the use of fluids in the resuscitation phase in critically ill adults.Medicina Intensiva 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.medin.2014.12.007 · 1.24 Impact Factor
Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2011. Springer Verlag 2011 ISBN 3642102859, 2011 edited by Vincent JL, 01/2011: chapter Facing the challenge: A rational strategy for fluid and volume management.: pages 340-352; Springer Verlag., ISBN: ISBN 3642102859