Hypertonic saline dextran--the fluid of choice in the resuscitation of haemorrhagic shock?

Intraoperative Infusion of Dextran Confers No Additional Benefit after Carotid Endarterectomy but Is Associated with Increased Perioperative Major Adverse Cardiac Events

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative dextran infusion has been associated with reduction of an embolic risk in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Nonetheless, dextran has been associated with adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, hemorrhage, cardiac, and renal complications. Herein, we aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of CEA stratified by the use of intraoperative dextran infusion using a large multiinstitutional dataset.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CEA between 2008 and 2022 from the Vascular Quality Initiative database were reviewed. Patients were categorized by use of intraoperative dextran infusion, and demographics, procedural data, and in-hospital outcomes were compared. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to adjust for differences in patients while assessing the association between postoperative outcomes and intraoperative infusion of dextran.

RESULTS

Of 140,893 patients undergoing CEA, 9,935 (7.1%) patients had intraoperative dextran infusion. Patients with intraoperative dextran infusion were older with lower rates of symptomatic stenosis (24.7% vs. 29.3%; P < 0.001) and preoperative use of antiplatelets, anticoagulants and statins. Additionally, they were more likely to have severe carotid stenosis (>80%; 49% vs. 45%; P < 0.001) and undergo CEA under general anesthesia (96.4% vs. 92.3%; P < 0.001), with a more frequent use of shunt (64.4% vs. 49.5%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, multivariable analysis showed that intraoperative dextran infusion was associated with higher odds of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including myocardial infarction [MI] (odds ratio [OR], 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-2.3, P < 0.001), congestive heart failure [CHF] (OR, 2.15, 95% CI: 1.67-2.77, P = 0.001), and hemodynamic instability requiring vasoactive agents (OR, 1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.13, P = 0.001). However, it was not associated with decreased odds of stroke (OR, 0.92, 95% CI: 0.74-1.16, P = 0.489) or death (OR, 0.88, 95% CI: 0.58-1.35, P = 0.554). These trends persisted even when stratified by symptomatic status and degree of stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative infusion of dextran was associated with increased odds of MACE, including MI, CHF, and persistent hemodynamic instability, without decreasing the risk of stroke perioperatively. Given these results, judicious use of dextran in patients undergoing CEA is recommended. Furthermore, careful perioperative cardiac management is warranted in select patients receiving intraoperative dextran during CEA.

Current purpose and practice of hypertonic saline in neurosurgery: a review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize controversies and current concepts regarding the use of hypertonic saline during the perioperative period in neurosurgery.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched on PubMed and Scopus electronic databases to identify all studies that have investigated the use of hypertonic saline in neurosurgery.

RESULTS

Fluid management during the course of neurosurgical practice has been debated at length, especially strategies to control intracranial pressure and small volume resuscitation. The goal of fluid therapy includes minimizing cerebral edema, preserving intravascular volume, and maintaining cerebral perfusion pressure. Mannitol is widely recognized as the gold standard for treating intracranial hypertension but can result in systemic hypotension. Thus, hypertonic saline provides volume expansion and may improve cerebral and systemic hemodynamics. Recently published prospective data, however, regarding the use of osmotic agents fails to establish clear guidelines in neurosurgical patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that hypertonic saline will emerge as an alternative to mannitol, especially for a long-term use or multiple doses are needed and lead to a great opportunity for collaborative research.

Comparison of 7.2% hypertonic saline - 6% hydroxyethyl starch solution and 6% hydroxyethyl starch solution after the induction of anesthesia in patients undergoing elective neurosurgical procedures

OBJECTIVE

The ideal solution for fluid management during neurosurgical procedures remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a 7.2% hypertonic saline - 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HS-HES) solution and a 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solution on clinical, hemodynamic and laboratory variables during elective neurosurgical procedures.

METHODS

Forty patients scheduled for elective neurosurgical procedures were randomly assigned to the HS-HES group orthe HES group. Afterthe induction of anesthesia, patients in the HS-HES group received 250 mL of HS-HES (500 mL/h), whereas the patients in the HES group received 1,000 mL of HES (1000 mL/h). The monitored variables included clinical, hemodynamic and laboratory parameters. Chictr.org: ChiCTR-TRC-12002357

RESULTS

The patients who received the HS-HES solution had a significant decrease in the intraoperative total fluid input (p<0.01), the volume of Ringer's solution required (p<0.05), the fluid balance (p<0.01) and their dural tension scores (p<0.05). The total urine output, blood loss, bleeding severity scores, operation duration and hemodynamic variables were similar in both groups (p>0.05). Moreover, compared with the HES group, the HS-HES group had significantly higher plasma concentrations of sodium and chloride, increasing the osmolality (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that HS-HES reduced the volume of intraoperative fluid required to maintain the patients undergoing surgery and led to a decrease in the intraoperative fluid balance. Moreover, HS-HES improved the dural tension scores and provided satisfactory brain relaxation. Our results indicate that HS-HES may represent a new avenue for volume therapy during elective neurosurgical procedures.

Hypertonic saline in critical care: a review of the literature and guidelines for use in hypotensive states and raised intracranial pressure

Hypertonic saline has been in clinical use for many decades. Its osmotic and volume-expanding properties make it theoretically useful for a number of indications in critical care. This literature review evaluates the use of hypertonic saline in critical care. The putative mechanism of action is presented, followed by a narrative review of its clinical usefulness in critical care. The review was conducted using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method for the review of cohort studies, randomised-controlled trials and meta-analyses. The review focuses specifically on blood pressure restoration and outcome benefit in both haemorrhagic and non-haemorrhagic shock, and the management of raised intracranial pressure. Issues of clinical improvement and outcome benefit are addressed. Hypertonic saline solutions are effective for blood pressure restoration in haemorrhagic, but not other, types of shock. There is no survival benefit with the use of hypertonic saline solutions in shock. Hypertonic saline solutions are effective at reducing intracranial pressure in conditions causing acute intracranial hypertension. There is no survival or outcome benefit with the use of hypertonic saline solutions for raised intracranial pressure. Recommendations for clinical use and future directions of clinical research are presented.