Effects of hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 vs. Ringer's acetate on cytokine levels in severe sepsis

Biomarkers of Coagulation and Inflammation in Dogs after Randomized Administration of 6% Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 or Hartmann's Solution

Synthetic colloid fluids containing hydroxyethyl starch (HES) have been associated with impairment of coagulation in dogs. It is unknown if HES causes coagulation impairment in dogs with naturally occurring critical illness. This study used banked plasma samples from a blinded, randomized clinical trial comparing HES and balanced isotonic crystalloid for bolus fluid therapy in 39 critically ill dogs. Blood was collected prior to fluid administration and 6, 12, and 24 h thereafter. Coagulation biomarkers measured at each time point included prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, fibrinogen concentration, and the activities of coagulation factors V, VII, VIII, IX, and X, von Willebrand factor antigen, antithrombin, and protein C. Given the links between coagulation and inflammation, cytokine concentrations were also measured, including interleukins 6, 8, 10, and 18, keratinocyte-derived chemokine, and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. Data were analyzed with linear mixed effects models. No significant treatment-by-time interactions were found for any biomarker, indicating that the pattern of change over time was not modified by treatment. Examining the main effect of time showed significant changes in several coagulation biomarkers and keratinocyte-derived chemokines. This study could not detect evidence of coagulation impairment with HES.

Resuscitation Fluids in Septic Shock: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of various resuscitation fluids in septic shock by adopting a network meta-analysis (NMA). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing resuscitation fluids in septic shock were carried out by retrieving electronic databases. NMAs of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) were conducted using the STATA 15.0 software. Probability-based ranking and surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) were performed to identify the optimal resuscitation fluid. Inconsistencies were evaluated by node-splitting analysis and a loop-specific approach. Furthermore, publication bias was analyzed by funnel plots. A total of 13 RCTs were enrolled in the analysis. The NMA results revealed that no significant differences were detected in the outcomes of 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality among various resuscitation fluids. The SUCRAs (the first indicates the best) of 28-day mortality showed that the hypertonic sodium chloride/hydroxyethyl starch 40 solution ranked the highest (93.8%), followed by the balanced solution (BS) (69.6%), and albumin (61.9%). On the other hand, the SUCRAs of 90-day mortality revealed that gelatin (GEL) ranked the highest (75.1%), followed by BS (55.1%), and NS (52.4%). The NMA results of AKI demonstrated that high-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (H-HES) was associated with increased risk of AKI in comparison with GEL, BS, and L-HES. The SUCRAs of AKI showed that GEL ranked the highest (74.4%), followed by NS (64.9%), and BS (58.3%). In addition, the NMA results of RRT revealed that H-HES was associated with an increased need for RRT in comparison with BS and NS, and L-HES was associated with increased need of RRT in comparison with BS. The SUCRAs of RRT revealed that NS ranked the highest (91.6%), followed by BS (74.4%) and L-HES (36.1%). No significant inconsistencies were shown by the node-splitting analysis and no publication bias was demonstrated in the funnel plots. In conclusion, BS was determined as the preferred resuscitation fluid for septic shock. Moreover, the use of GEL requires further evaluation. H-HES was associated with a significant risk of AKI and RRT, whereas L-HES with an increased need for RRT compared with BS. Thus, both resuscitation fluids should be avoided for septic shock.

Starch Wars-New Episodes of the Saga. Changes in Regulations on Hydroxyethyl Starch in the European Union

After a safety review of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions in 2013, restrictions on the use of HES were introduced in the European Union (EU) to reduce the risk of kidney injury and death in certain patient populations. Similar restrictions were introduced by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and other countries. In October 2017, a second safety review of HES solutions was triggered by the European pharmacovigilance authorities based on a request by the Swedish Medical Products Agency to completely suspend HES. After several meetings and repeated evaluations, the recommendation to ban HES was ultimately not endorsed by the responsible committee; however, there was a vote for more restricted access to the drug and rigorous monitoring of policy adherence. This review delineates developments in the European pharmacovigilance risk assessment of HES solutions between 2013 and 2018. In addition, the divergent experts' opinions and the controversy surrounding this official assessment are described. As the new decisions might influence the availability of HES products for veterinary patients, potential alternatives to HES solutions, such as albumin solutions and gelatin, are briefly discussed.

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people

BACKGROUND

Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.