Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function

Perioperative Fluid Management in Surgical Patients: A Review

Intravenous (IV) fluids are one of the most widely prescribed medications. Despite their frequent usage, IV fluids are often not used appropriately. High-quality evidence to guide the surgeon in the perioperative period is sparse. A plethora of choices for IV fluids exists with limited evidence to help guide the surgeon in specific patient populations and situations. To address this, the authors have set out to provide a critical review of commonly used IV fluids to treat surgical patients. Gaps in the existing literature for the surgical population will also be discussed as potential target areas for future research.

Issues of Acute Kidney Injury Staging and Management in Sepsis and Critical Illness: A Narrative Review

Acute kidney injury (AKI) has a high incidence on intensive care units around the world and is a major complication in critically ill patients suffering from sepsis or septic shock. The short- and long-term complications are thereby devastating and impair the quality of life. Especially in terms of AKI staging, the determination of kidney function and the timing of dialytic AKI management outside of life-threatening indications are ongoing matters of debate. Despite several studies, a major problem remains in distinguishing between beneficial and unnecessary "early" or even harmful renal replacement therapy (RRT). The latter might prolong disease course and renal recovery. AKI scores, however, provide an insufficient outcome-predicting ability and the related estimation of kidney function via serum creatinine or blood urea nitrogen (BUN)/urea is not reliable in AKI and critical illness. Kidney independent alterations of creatinine- and BUN/urea-levels further complicate the situation. This review critically assesses the current AKI staging, issues and pitfalls of the determination of kidney function and RRT timing, as well as the potential harm reflected by unnecessary RRT. A better understanding is mandatory to improve future study designs and avoid unnecessary RRT for higher patient safety and lower health care costs.

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function

BACKGROUND

Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are synthetic colloids commonly used for fluid resuscitation to replace intravascular volume, yet they have been increasingly associated with adverse effects on kidney function. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of HES on kidney function compared to other fluid resuscitation therapies in different patient populations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, MetaRegister and reference lists of articles. The most recent search was completed on November 19, 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which HES was compared to an alternate fluid therapy for the prevention or treatment of effective intravascular volume depletion. Primary outcomes were renal replacement therapy (RRT), author-defined kidney failure and acute kidney injury (AKI) as defined by the RIFLE criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessments for each retrieved article were carried out by two authors using standardised forms. All outcomes were analysed using relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Authors were contacted when published data were incomplete. Preplanned sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed after data were analysed with a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 42 studies (11,399 patients) including 19 studies from the original review (2010), as well as 23 new studies. Fifteen studies were excluded from the original review (nine retracted from publication due to concerns about integrity of data and six lacking individual patient creatinine data for the calculation of RIFLE criteria). Overall, there was a significant increase in the need for RRT in the HES treated individuals compared to individuals treated with other fluid therapies (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.49; 19 studies, 9857 patients) and the number with author-defined kidney failure (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.00; 15 studies, 1361 patients). The RR of AKI based on RIFLE-F (failure) criteria also showed an increased risk of AKI in individuals treated with HES products (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30; 15 studies, 8402 participants). The risk of meeting urine output and creatinine based RIFLE-R (risk) criteria for AKI was in contrast in favour of HES therapies (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99; 20 studies, 8769 patients). However, when RIFLE-R urine output based outcomes were excluded as per study protocol, the direction of AKI risk again favoured the other fluid type, with a non-significant RR of AKI in HES treated patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.14; 8445 patients). A more robust effect was seen for the RIFLE-I (injury) outcome, with a RR of AKI of 1.22 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 8338 patients). No differences between subgroups for the RRT and RIFLE-F based outcomes were seen between sepsis versus non-sepsis patients, high molecular weight (MW) and degree of substitution (DS) versus low MW and DS (≥ 200 kDa and > 0.4 DS versus 130 kDa and 0.4 DS) HES solutions, or high versus low dose treatments (i.e. ≥ 2 L versus < 2 L). There were differences identified between sepsis versus non-sepsis subgroups for the RIFLE-R and RIFLE-I based outcomes only, which may reflect the differing renal response to fluid resuscitation in pre-renal versus sepsis-associated AKI. Overall, methodological quality of the studies was good.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggests that all HES products increase the risk in AKI and RRT in all patient populations and a safe volume of any HES solution has yet to be determined. In most clinical situations it is likely that these risks outweigh any benefits, and alternate volume replacement therapies should be used in place of HES products.

[Results of studies in critical care medicine in the year 2009 : update]

Critical care medicine plays an important role for the medical and economic success of hospitals. Knowledge and implementation of recent relevant studies are prerequisites for high quality intensive care medicine. The aim of the present manuscript is to present an overview of the most important publications in intensive care medicine in 2009 and comment on their clinical relevance. It has to be recognized that the cited studies are chosen according to the view of the authors. In 2009 many large randomized studies with high patient numbers were published. Main topics in 2009 were the therapy of lung failure, analgosedation and sepsis therapy. New trends are bedside echocardiography and telemedicine. Unfortunately, a magic bullet has not been identified last year. The focus is still on team education and guideline-assisted therapy.

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function

BACKGROUND

Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are synthetic colloids commonly used for fluid resuscitation, yet controversy exists about their impact on kidney function.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of HES on kidney function compared to other fluid resuscitation therapies in different patient populations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, MetaRegister and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which HES was compared to an alternate fluid therapy for the prevention or treatment of effective intravascular volume depletion. Primary outcomes were renal replacement therapy (RRT), author-defined kidney failure and acute kidney injury (AKI) as defined by the RIFLE criteria. Secondary outcomes included serum creatinine and creatinine clearance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessments for each retrieved article were carried out by two authors using standardised forms. Authors were contacted when published data were incomplete. Preplanned sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed after data were analysed with a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 34 studies (2607 patients). Overall, the RR of author-defined kidney failure was 1.50 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.87; n = 1199) and 1.38 for requiring RRT (95% CI 0.89 to 2.16; n = 1236) in HES treated individuals compared with other fluid therapies. Subgroup analyses suggested increased risk in septic patients compared to non-septic (surgical/trauma) patients. Non-septic patient studies were smaller and had lower event rates, so subgroup differences may have been due to lack of statistical power in these studies. Only limited data was obtained for analysis of kidney outcomes by the RIFLE criteria. Overall, methodological quality of studies was good but subjective outcomes were potentially biased because most studies were unblinded.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Potential for increased risk of AKI should be considered when weighing the risks and benefits of HES for volume resuscitation, particularly in septic patients. Large studies with adequate follow-up are required to evaluate the renal safety of HES products in non-septic patient populations. RIFLE criteria should be applied to evaluate kidney function in future studies of HES and, where data is available, to re-analyse those studies already published. There is inadequate clinical data to address the claim that safety differences exist between different HES products.