Hydroxyethyl starch versus other fluids for non-septic patients in the intensive care unit: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Albumin in adult cardiac surgery: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Intravascular fluids are a necessary and universal component of cardiac surgical patient care. Both crystalloids and colloids are used to maintain or restore circulating plasma volume and ensure adequate organ perfusion. In Canada, human albumin solution (5% or 25% concentration) is a colloid commonly used for this purpose. In this narrative review, we discuss albumin supply in Canada, explore the perceived advantages of albumin, and describe the clinical literature supporting and refuting albumin use over other fluids in the adult cardiac surgical population.

SOURCE

We conducted a targeted search of PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Search terms included albumin, colloid, cardiac surgery, bleeding, hemorrhage, transfusion, and cardiopulmonary bypass.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Albumin is produced from fractionated human plasma and imported into Canada from international suppliers at a cost of approximately $21 million CAD per annum. While it is widely used in cardiac surgical patients across the country, it is approximately 30-times more expensive than equivalent doses of balanced crystalloid solutions, with wide inter-institutional variability in use and no clear association with improved outcomes. There is a general lack of high-quality evidence for the superiority of albumin over crystalloids in this patient population, and conflicting evidence regarding safety.

CONCLUSIONS

In cardiac surgical patients, albumin is widely utilized despite a lack of high- quality evidence supporting its efficacy or safety. A well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed to clarify the role of albumin in cardiac surgical patients.

Hydroxyethyl Starch 6% 130/0.4 in a Balanced Electrolyte Solution and Renal Function After Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have reported nephrotoxicity associated with hydroxyethyl starch (HES), the long-term effect of HES on renal function after nephrectomy has rarely been reported. We evaluated the association between intraoperative HES administration and short- and long-term renal function after nephrectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1106 patients who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy. The patients were divided into 2 groups: patients who received (HES group) or did not receive 6% HES 130/0.4 intraoperatively (non-HES group). The primary outcome was new-onset chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3a (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 mL/min/1.73 m) or higher or all-cause mortality during 60 months after surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to address baseline differences between the 2 groups. Renal survival determined by stage 3a and stage 5 CKD (eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m) or all-cause mortality were compared up to 60 months before and after matching. We compared postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and CKD upstaging in the matched cohort as secondary outcomes. Ordinal logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses using inverse probability of treatment weighting were performed for postoperative AKI and our primary outcome, respectively. A subgroup analysis of partial nephrectomy was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty percent of patients received HES intraoperatively. Balanced solution and 0.9% normal saline was administered during surgery in both groups. Renal survival was not significantly different between groups after matching (log-rank test P = .377 for our primary outcome, and P = .981 for stage 5 or all-cause mortality, respectively). In the matched cohort (HES group: n = 280, non-HES group: n = 280), the incidence of AKI or CKD upstaging at 1 year was not significantly different (AKI: n = 94, 33.6% in HES group versus n = 90, 32.1% in non-HES group; CKD upstaging: n = 132, 47.1% in HES group versus n = 122, 43.6% in non-HES group; odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.61; P = .396). Intraoperative HES administration was not associated with postoperative renal outcomes (AKI: OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.16; P = .723; CKD stage 3a or higher or all-cause mortality: hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.14; P = .920). Subgroup analysis yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative 6% HES 130/0.4 administration was not significantly associated with short- and long-term renal function or renal survival up to 5 years in patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy. However, wide CI including large harm effect precludes firm conclusion and inadequate assessment of safety cannot be ruled out by our results.

lntraoperative administration of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 is not associated with acute kidney injury in elective non-cardiac surgery: A sequential and propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) may increase the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). Data from large populations are lacking. We aimed to assess whether intraoperative administration of 6% HES 130/0.4 is associated with AKI in non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the electronic records concerning elective abdominal, urologic, thoracic and peripheral vascular surgeries from 2010 to 2015. HES and non-HES patients were compared using a propensity score matching. Postoperative AKI, defined by stage 3 of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) score, was the primary outcome. Because the use of HES markedly decreased in 2013, additional analyses, restricted to the 2010-2012 period, were also performed.

RESULTS

In total, 23,045, and 11,691 patients were included in the whole, and restricted periods, respectively. The reduction in HES use was not accompanied by any change in the incidence of AKI. Unadjusted association between HES and KDIGO 3 AKI was significant (OR [95% CI] of 2.13 [1.67, 2.71]). For the whole period, 6460 patients were matched. Odd ratios for KDIGO 3 and all-stage AKI when using HES (10.3±4.7mL.kg^-1) were 1.20 (95% CI [0.74, 1.95]), and 1.21 (95% CI [0.95, 1.54]), respectively. There was no association with the initiation of renal replacement therapy or in-hospital mortality either. Similar results were found for the restricted period.

CONCLUSION

The intraoperative use of moderate doses of 6% HES 130/0.4 was not associated with increased risk of AKI. No conclusion can be drawn for higher doses of HES.

Plasma expanders for people with cirrhosis and large ascites treated with abdominal paracentesis

BACKGROUND

Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.

Safety and efficacy of peri-operative administration of hydroxyethyl starch in children undergoing surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions have shown their efficiency for intravascular volume expansion. A safety recommendation limiting their use in adult patients has recently been made.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of HES when administered intra-operatively to paediatric patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analyses. Data were analysed using classical mean differences [and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] and trial sequential analysis. A Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification was performed for all outcomes. Reviewers extracted valid data, including perioperative total fluid intakes, mortality, renal function, coagulation tests, blood loss and length of hospital and ICU stay.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were performed in databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials), clinical trials register, and open access journals not indexed in major databases.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before December 2016 involving paediatric patients who received 6% low molecular weight HES.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs involving 530 peri-operative paediatric patients were analysed. Compared with other fluids, HES did not significantly modify the amount of peri-operative fluid administered [mean difference 0.04; 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.84) ml kg], urine output [mean difference -33; 95% CI (-104 to 38) ml kg] or blood loss [mean difference -0.09; (-0.32 to 0.15) ml kg]. Trial sequential analysis determined that the outcomes for peri-operative fluid and urine output were underpowered. All results were graded as very low quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Intravascular volume expansion with low molecular weight 6% HES did not appear to modify renal function, blood loss or transfusion when administered to children during the peri-operative period. However, given the lack of statistical power and the very low GRADE quality of evidence, more high-quality RCTs are needed to explore these outcomes.

Evaluation of Renal Function with Administration of 6% Hydroxyethyl Starch and 4% Gelatin in Major Abdominal Surgeries: A Pilot Study

Background:

Synthetic colloids, both starches and gelatins, are commonly used as intravascular fluid replacements on account of increased vascular persistence. The safety on renal outcomes during perioperative use is poorly understood.

Aims:

We evaluated renal outcomes of hydroxyethyl starch 6% (HES) and gelatins 4% (G) in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. The primary outcome was serum creatinine measurements at baseline, 12 h, 36 h, and 1 week postoperatively (T₀, T₁₂, T₃₆, and D₇). The secondary outcomes were measurements of prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), fibrinogen, and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) at baseline, 12 h, and 36 h postoperatively.

Setting and Design:

A prospective randomized study was conducted at a tertiary care institute.

Materials and Methods:

Seven-five adult patients received either HES (Group H) or gelatin (Group G) at 20-ml/kg body weight or only crystalloids (Group C) during surgery. Statistical tests used were one-way ANOVA, Student's t-test, Pearson correlation method, and Chi-square test.

Results:

Serum creatinine assessed at T₀, T₁₂, T₃₆, and D₇ was comparable between the three groups. PT/INR and aPTT showed no significant increase in values of T₁₂ and T₃₆ in comparison to T₀. Fibrinogen level was significantly higher in Group C at T₁₂ and T₃₆. Intraoperative vasopressor use, need for product transfusion, length of intensive care unit stay, and return of bowel function were similar between the three groups.

Conclusions:

Intraoperative use of HES (130/0.4) or gelatin (4%) at 20-ml/kg body weight was not associated with renal dysfunction or altered PT and aPTT in adult patients undergoing elective abdominal major surgeries.

Choice of fluids in critically ill patients

Background

Fluids are by far the most commonly administered intravenous treatment in patient care. During critical illness, fluids are widely administered to maintain or increase cardiac output, thereby relieving overt tissue hypoperfusion and hypoxia.

Main text

Until recently, because of their excellent safety profile, fluids were not considered “medications”. However, it is now understood that intravenous fluid should be viewed as drugs. They affect the cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal and immune systems. Fluid administration should therefore always be accompanied by careful consideration of the risk/benefit ratio, not only of the additional volume being administered but also of the effect of its composition on the physiology of the patient. Apart from the need to constantly assess fluid responsiveness, it is also important to periodically reconsider the type of fluid being administered and the evidence regarding the relationship between specific disease states and different fluid solutions.

Conclusions

The current review presents the state of the art regarding fluid solutions and presents the existing evidence on routine fluid management of critically ill patients in specific clinical settings (sepsis, Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome, major abdominal surgery, acute kidney injury and trauma).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0669-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Hydroxyethyl starch for volume expansion after subarachnoid haemorrhage and renal function: Results of a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) was part of "triple-H" therapy for prophylaxis and therapy of vasospasm in patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). The European Medicines Agency restricted the use of HES in 2013 due to an increase of renal failure in critically ill patients receiving HES compared to crystalloid fluids. The occurrence of renal insufficiency in patients with SAH due to HES is still uncertain. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether there was an association with renal impairment in patients receiving HES after subarachnoid haemorrhage.

METHODS

Medical records of all non-traumatic SAH patients treated at the Departments of Anaesthesiology and Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Germany, between January 2009 and December 2014 were analysed. Patients received either HES 6% and/or 10% (HES group, n = 183) or exclusively crystalloids for fluid therapy (Crystalloid group, n = 93). Primary outcome was the incidence of acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

The study groups had similar characteristics except for initial SAPS scores, incidence of vasospasm and ICU length of stay. Patients receiving HES fulfilled significantly more often SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria. 24.6% (45/183) of the patients in the HES group had acute kidney injury (KDIGO 1-3) at any time during their ICU stay compared to 26.9% (25/93) in the crystalloid group (p = 0.679). Only few patients needed renal replacement therapy with no significant difference between groups (Crystalloid group: 4.3%; HES group: 2.2%; p = 0.322). The incidence of vasospasm was increased in the HES group when compared to the crystalloid group (33.9% vs. 17.2%; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

In the presented series of patients with non-traumatic SAH we found no significant association between HES therapy and the incidence of acute kidney injury. Treatment without HES did not worsen patient outcome.

Use of intravenous fluids/solutions: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous fluids are broadly categorized into colloids and crystalloids. The aim of this review is to present under a clinical point of view the characteristics of intravenous fluids that make them more or less appropriate either for maintaining hydration when enteral intake is contraindicated or for treating hypovolemia.

METHODS

We considered randomized trials and meta-analyses as well as narrative reviews evaluating the effects of colloids or crystalloids in patients with hypovolemia or as maintenance fluids published in the PubMed and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Clinical studies have not shown a greater clinical benefit of albumin solutions compared with crystalloid solutions. Furthermore, albumin and colloid solutions may impair renal function, while there is no evidence that the administration of colloids reduces the risk of death compared with resuscitation with crystalloids in patients with trauma, burns or following surgery. Among crystalloids, normal saline is associated with the development of hyperchloremia-induced impairment of kidney function and metabolic acidosis. On the other hand, the other commonly used crystalloid solution, the Ringer's Lactate, has certain indications and contraindications. These matters, along with the basic principles of the administration of potassium chloride and bicarbonate, are meticulously discussed in the review.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous fluids should be dealt with as drugs, as they have specific clinical indications, contraindications and adverse effects.

Does the infusion rate of fluid affect rapidity of mean arterial pressure restoration during controlled hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare 2 fluid infusion rates of lactated Ringer (LR) and hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 on hemodynamic restoration at the early phase of controlled hemorrhagic shock.

METHODS

Fifty-six anesthetized and ventilated piglets were bled until mean arterial pressure (MAP) reached 40 mm Hg. Controlled hemorrhage was maintained for 30 minutes. After this period, 4 resuscitation groups were studied (n=14 for each group): HES infused at 1 or 4mL/kg per minute or LR1 infused at 1 or 4mL/kg per minute until baseline MAP was restored. Hemodynamic assessment using PiCCO monitoring and biological data were collected.

RESULTS

Time to restore baseline MAP ±10% was significantly lower in LR4 group (11±11 minutes) compared to LR1 group (41±25 minutes) (P=.0004). Time to restore baseline MAP ±10% was significantly lower in HES4 group (4±3 minutes) compared to HES1 (11±4 minutes) (P=.0003). Time to restore baseline MAP ±10% was significantly lower with HES vs LR whatever the infusion rate. No statistically significant difference was observed in cardiac output, central venous saturation, extravascular lung water, and arterial lactate between 4 and 1 mL/kg per minute groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this controlled hemorrhagic shock model, a faster infusion rate (4 vs 1mL/kg per minute) significantly decreased the time for restoring baseline MAP, regardless of the type of infused fluid. The time for MAP restoration was significantly shorter for HES as compared to LR whatever the fluid infusion rate.