Is the literature inconclusive about the harm from HES? No

Phases of fluid management and the roles of human albumin solution in perioperative and critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE

Positive fluid balance is common among critically ill patients and leads to worse outcomes, particularly in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and acute kidney injury. Restrictive fluid infusion and active removal of accumulated fluid are being studied as approaches to prevent and treat fluid overload. Use of human albumin solutions has been investigated in different phases of restrictive fluid resuscitation, and this narrative literature review was undertaken to evaluate hypoalbuminemia and the roles of human serum albumin with respect to hypovolemia and its management.

METHODS

PubMed/EMBASE search terms were: "resuscitation," "fluids," "fluid therapy," "fluid balance," "plasma volume," "colloids," "crystalloids," "albumin," "hypoalbuminemia," "starch," "saline," "balanced salt solution," "gelatin," "goal-directed therapy" (English-language, pre-January 2020). Additional papers were identified by manual searching of reference lists.

RESULTS

Restrictive fluid administration, plus early vasopressor use, may reduce fluid balance, but in some cases fluid overload cannot be entirely avoided. Deresuscitation, with fluid actively removed through diuretics or ultrafiltration, reduces duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. Combining hyperoncotic human albumin solution with diuretics increases hemodynamic stability and diuresis. Hyperoncotic albumin corrects hypoalbuminemia and raises colloid osmotic pressure, limiting edema formation and potentially improving endothelial function. Serum levels of albumin relative to C-reactive protein and lactate may predict which patients will benefit most from albumin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperoncotic human albumin solution facilitates restrictive fluid therapy and the effectiveness of deresuscitative measures. Current evidence is mostly from observational studies, and more randomized trials are needed to better establish a personalized approach to fluid management.

Haemodynamic response to crystalloids or colloids in shock: an exploratory subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the haemodynamic effect of crystalloids and colloids during acute severe hypovolaemic shock.

DESIGN

Exploratory subgroup analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Colloids Versus Crystalloids for the Resuscitation of the Critically Ill, CRISTAL, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00318942).

SETTING

CRISTAL was conducted in intensive care units in Europe, North Africa and Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Current analysis included all patients who had a pulmonary artery catheter in place at randomisation. 220 patients (117 received crystalloids vs 103 colloids) underwent pulmonary artery catheterisation.

INTERVENTION

Crystalloids versus colloids for fluid resuscitation in hypovolaemic shock.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Haemodynamic data were collected at the time of randomisation and subsequently on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

RESULTS

Median cumulative volume of fluid administered during the first 7 days was higher in the crystalloids group than in the colloids group (3500 (2000-6000) vs 2500 (1000-4000) mL, p=0.01). Patients in the colloids arm exhibited a lower heart rate over time compared with those allocated to the crystalloids arm (p=0.014). There was no significant difference in Cardiac Index (p=0.053), mean blood pressure (p=0.4), arterial lactates (p=0.9) or global Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (p=0.3) over time between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

During acute severe hypovolaemic shock, patients monitored by a pulmonary artery catheter achieved broadly similar haemodynamic outcomes, using lower volumes of colloids than crystalloids. The heart rate was lower in the colloids arm.

Comparison of hydroxyethyl starch regulatory summaries from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency

This article aims to highlight the positions of the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency regarding use and marketing of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) products, and how these have changed over recent years. In 2013, warnings from both agencies advised against use of HES in critically ill patients, including patients with sepsis, when several large randomized controlled trials on volume resuscitation in critical illness failed to observe clinically beneficial effects of HES. In areas such as patient monitoring and requirements for further clinical trials, the FDA and EMA are very much in agreement in their recommendations. However, EMA guidance is generally more restrictive on HES usage compared to that from the FDA. Differences in data presented to regulatory authorities, bias in study results and inherent weakness of meta-analyses used for drug surveillance purposes, plus different risk-management approaches used by the two regulatory authorities, likely contribute to different outcomes in their regulations concerning use of HES.