Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients
Cochrane Injuries Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1E 7HT.Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 11/2011; 3(3):CD000567. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub4
Trauma, burns or surgery can cause people to lose large amounts of blood. Fluid replacement, giving fluids intravenously (into a vein) to replace lost blood, is used to try to maintain blood pressure and reduce the risk of dying. Blood products, non-blood products or combinations are used, including colloid or crystalloid solutions. Colloids are increasingly used but they are more expensive than crystalloids. This review of trials found no evidence that colloids reduce the risk of dying compared with crystalloids.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "In some trials of critically ill patients, an initial effect of HES has been observed on hemodynamic markers as compared with crystalloids[26,27], which could be attributed to a less affection of the endothelium. If such an effect occurred, it did not translate into overall benefit from HES in the 6S trial; the results of which are supported by the pooled estimates in meta-analyses of HES vs crystalloids in critically ill patients28293031. The correlations between increased level of endothelial derived biomarkers and disease severity, organ failure, and mortality have been indicated in several studies; thus, the circulating level of sTM may be a predictor of outcome in sepsis[7,32333435. "
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The Scandinavian Starch for Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock (6S) trial showed increased mortality in patients resuscitated with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 (HES) vs Ringer acetate. Different effects of the fluids on the endothelium may have contributed to the observed outcome. We aimed to investigate associations between HES vs Ringer and changes in plasma biomarkers reflecting endothelial damage and coagulation impairment. Materials and methods: Six biomarkers, including soluble thrombomodulin (sTM) and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), were assessed in a subgroup of 208 patients from the 6S trial. We analyzed differences in plasma concentration in the 2 intervention groups using linear or logistic regression models. Results: The increase in plasma sTM was lower in the HES group (-1.8 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to -0.7; P = .002). The change was not statistically significant associated with mortality whereas increase in plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 was (odds ratio for 1-unit increase, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.08; P = .01). Conclusions: Resuscitation with HES vs Ringer decreased early endothelial damage. Although this finding should be interpreted with caution, it indicates that the increased mortality observed with HES in the 6S trial may not be explained by endothelial damage and it emphasizes the challenge of using surrogate markers as outcome.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Albumin is used by us in accordance with the " Lund concept " of brain injury resuscitation (Grande 2011), and for us, it was natural to replace HES with HA. However, in large metaanalyses on the effectiveness of HA on patient mortality and morbidity, no significant benefits have been shown when comparing HA to synthetic colloids or crystalloids (Perel et al. 2013; Roberts et al. 2011). HA may have lesser impact on coagulation compared to synthetic colloids (Niemi et al. 2006), which is a desirable quality for perioperative use. "
ABSTRACT: Background The European Medicines Agency does not recommend the use of hydroxyethyl starch-based volume replacement solutions in critically ill patients due to an increased risk of renal failure. However, this recommendation is questionable for its perioperative use. Several recent randomised controlled studies do not indicate a risk for renal failure—not even after high-risk surgery. Human albumin is used in our neurointensive care unit as a part of the “Lund concept” of brain injury resuscitation, and albumin has been introduced in elective neurosurgery instead of starch. The aim of our prospective unblinded observational cohort study was to compare the degree of dilutive coagulopathy after albumin and starch intra-operative fluid therapy. Methods Thirty-nine patients undergoing elective brain tumour surgery with craniotomy received either 130/0.42 hydroxyethyl starch or 5 % albumin infusions. The first 18 patients received starch, whereas the rest received albumin. Rotational thromboelastometry with ROTEM and platelet aggregometry with Multiplate were performed before surgery, after the first and second consecutive colloid infusions (250/500 ml albumin or 500/1000 ml starch) and at the end of surgery. Results Both intra- and inter-group comparisons showed more deranged ROTEM parameters after the higher doses of starch. Multiplate detected changes only in the albumin group after 500-ml infusion. Blood los did not differ between groups, nor did haemoglobin preoperatively or at end of surgery. Lower volumes of albumin were required to maintain stable intra-operative haemodynamic parameters; 250/500 ml albumin corresponded to 500/1000 ml starch. Conclusions Hydroxyethyl starch affected coagulation at lower volumes, with a more prominent effect on clot structure at the end of surgery, corroborating previous research. Only albumin decreased platelet aggregation, and 5 % albumin had a more potential volume effect than 130/0.42 hydroxyethyl starch.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "In recent years, a large amount of studies       have focused on the selection of crystalloids or colloids in fluid resuscitation and many related meta-analysis        have been put forward. However, researches on the comparison between regular fluid resuscitation (RFR) and limited fluid resuscitation (LFR) were few and only one meta-analysis was found . "
ABSTRACT: Backgrounds: The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of limited fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage compared with regular fluid resuscitation and provide strong evidences for the improvement of fluid resuscitation strategies in uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock. Methods: Electronic searches were performed using PubMed, Medline, Embase and CNKI in accordance with pre-set guidelines. Clinical trials and observation studies were included or excluded according to the criteria. The endpoints examined were mortality, hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLT), hematocrit (Hct), prothrombin Time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), base excess (BE), blood lactic acid (BLA) and the main complications, such as multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were calculated using fixed/random effect model. Results: The search indentified 11 studies including 1482 subjects. 725 hemorrhagic patients were treated with limited fluid resuscitation while 757 patients undertook regular fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage. Limited fluid resuscitation had its advantage to reduce the mortality in hemorrhagic shock (RR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.56-0.81; P < 0.0001) and easily controlled the blood routine index close to normal compared with regular fluid resuscitation (Hb: MD = 13.04; 95% CI = 2.69-23.38; P = 0.01. PLT: MD = 23.16; 95% CI = 6.41-39.91; P = 0.007. Hct: MD = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.02-0.03; P < 0.00001). LFR also had shorter PT and APTT compared with RFR (PT: MD = -2.81; 95% CI = -3.44--2.17; P < 0.00001 and APTT: MD = -5.14; 95% CI = -6.16--4.12; P < 0.00001). As for blood gas analysis, LFR reduced the decrease of BE (MD = 2.48; 95% CI = 1.11-3.85; P = 0.0004) and increase of BLA (MD = -0.65; 95% CI = -0.85--0.44; P < 0.00001). Besides, LFR may also reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications (MODS: RR= 0.37; 95% CI = 0.21-0.66; P = 0.0008. ARDS: RR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.21-0.60; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The results provide convincing evidence that support the continued investigation and use of limited fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage in the trauma setting.
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.