94
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    7
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early fluid resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (6%) in severe burn injury: a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          There are limited data on the efficacy of early fluid resuscitation with third-generation hydroxyethyl starch (HES 130) in burn injury. Adverse effects of HES on survival and organ function have been reported.

          Methods

          In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 48 patients with severe burn injury were assigned to receive either lactated Ringer’s solution plus 6% HES 130/0.4 in a ratio of 2:1 or lactated Ringer’s solution with no colloid supplement for the first 72 hours. Primary outcome parameter was the group difference of administered total fluid from intensive care unit (ICU) admission up to day 3. Secondary outcomes included kidney and lung injury and failure, length of stay, and mortality.

          Results

          Three-day totals of administered resuscitation fluid (medians) were 21,190 mL in the lactated Ringer’s group and 19,535 mL in the HES group (HES: −1,213 mL; P = 0.39). Creatinine levels from day 1 to 3 (HES: +0.4 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI) −18.7 to 19.5; P = 0.97) and urinary outputs from day 1 to 3 (HES: −58 mL; 95% CI −400 to 283; P = 0.90) were not different. Six patients in each group developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.35 to 2.64; P = 0.95). Length of ICU stay (HES vs. lactated Ringer’s: 28 vs. 24 days; P = 0.80) and length of hospital stay (31 vs. 29 days; P = 0.57) were similar. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 4 patients in each group (risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.27 to 4.45; P = 0.95), and in-hospital mortality was 8 in the HES group vs. 5 patients in the lactated Ringer’s group (hazard ratio 1.86; 95% CI 0.56 to 6.19; P = 0.31).

          Conclusions

          There was no evidence that early fluid resuscitation with balanced HES 130/0.4 (6%) in addition to lactated Ringer’s solution would lead to a volume-sparing effect in severe burn injury. Together with the findings that early renal function, incidence of ARDS, length of stay, and mortality were not negatively influenced by HES in this setting, balanced HES 130/0.4 (6%) plus lactated Ringer’s solution could not be considered superior to lactated Ringer’s solution alone.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01012648

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

          (1998)
          To quantify effect on mortality of administering human albumin or plasma protein fraction during management of critically ill patients. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing administration of albumin or plasma protein fraction with no administration or with administration of crystalloid solution in critically ill patients with hypovolaemia, burns, or hypoalbuminaemia. 30 randomised controlled trials including 1419 randomised patients. Mortality from all causes at end of follow up for each trial. For each patient category the risk of death in the albumin treated group was higher than in the comparison group. For hypovolaemia the relative risk of death after albumin administration was 1.46 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 2.22), for burns the relative risk was 2.40 (1.11 to 5.19), and for hypoalbuminaemia it was 1.69 (1.07 to 2.67). Pooled relative risk of death with albumin administration was 1.68 (1.26 to 2.23). Pooled difference in the risk of death with albumin was 6% (95% confidence interval 3% to 9%) with a fixed effects model. These data suggest that for every 17 critically ill patients treated with albumin there is one additional death. There is no evidence that albumin administration reduces mortality in critically ill patients with hypovolaemia, burns, or hypoalbuminaemia and a strong suggestion that it may increase mortality. These data suggest that use of human albumin in critically ill patients should be urgently reviewed and that it should not be used outside the context of rigorously conducted, randomised controlled trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

            Objective To assess the effects of fluid therapy with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin on mortality, kidney injury, bleeding, and serious adverse events in patients with sepsis. Design Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biosis Previews, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Current Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Centerwatch to September 2012; hand search of reference lists and other systematic reviews; contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies. Study selection Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 with either crystalloid or human albumin in patients with sepsis. Published and unpublished trials were included irrespective of language and predefined outcomes. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. Risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models. Results Nine trials that randomised 3456 patients with sepsis were included. Overall, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin did not affect the relative risk of death (1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22, 3414 patients, eight trials), but in the predefined analysis of trials with low risk of bias the relative risk of death was 1.11 (1.00 to 1.23, trial sequential analysis (TSA) adjusted 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.29, 3016 patients, four trials). In the hydroxyethyl starch group, renal replacement therapy was used more (1.36, 1.08 to 1.72, TSA adjusted 1.03 to 1.80, 1311 patients, five trials), and the relative risk of acute kidney injury was 1.18 (0.99 to 1.40, TSA adjusted 0.90 to 1.54, 994 patients, four trials). More patients in the hydroxyethyl starch group were transfused with red blood cells (1.29, 1.13 to 1.48, TSA adjusted 1.10 to 1.51, 973 patients, three trials), and more patients had serious adverse events (1.30, 1.02 to 1.67, TSA adjusted 0.93 to 1.83, 1069 patients, four trials). The transfused volume of red blood cells did not differ between the groups (mean difference 65 mL, 95% confidence interval −20 to 149 mL, three trials). Conclusion In conventional meta-analyses including recent trial data, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin increased the use of renal replacement therapy and transfusion with red blood cells, and resulted in more serious adverse events in patients with sepsis. It seems unlikely that hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 provides overall clinical benefit for patients with sepsis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch improves renal function and lactate clearance in penetrating trauma in a randomized controlled study: the FIRST trial (Fluids in Resuscitation of Severe Trauma).

              The role of fluids in trauma resuscitation is controversial. We compared resuscitation with 0.9% saline vs hydroxyethyl starch, HES 130/0.4, in severe trauma with respect to resuscitation, fluid volume, gastrointestinal recovery, renal function, and blood product requirements. Randomized, controlled, double-blind study of severely injured patients requiring >3 litres of fluid resuscitation. Blunt and penetrating trauma were randomized separately. Patients were followed up for 30 days. A total of 115 patients were randomized; of which, 109 were studied. For patients with penetrating trauma (n=67), the mean (sd) fluid requirements were 5.1 (2.7) litres in the HES group and 7.4 (4.3) litres in the saline group (P<0.001). In blunt trauma (n=42), there was no difference in study fluid requirements, but the HES group required significantly more blood products [packed red blood cell volumes 2943 (1628) vs 1473 (1071) ml, P=0.005] and was more severely injured than the saline group (median injury severity score 29.5 vs 18; P=0.01). Haemodynamic data were similar, but, in the penetrating group, plasma lactate concentrations were lower over the first 4 h (P=0.029) and on day 1 with HES than with saline [2.1 (1.4) vs 3.2 (2.2) mmol litre⁻¹; P=0.017]. There was no difference between any groups in time to recovery of bowel function or mortality. In penetrating trauma, renal injury occurred more frequently in the saline group than the HES group (16% vs 0%; P=0.018). In penetrating trauma, maximum sequential organ function scores were lower with HES than with saline (median 2.4 vs 4.5, P=0.012). No differences were seen in safety measures in the blunt trauma patients. In penetrating trauma, HES provided significantly better lactate clearance and less renal injury than saline. No firm conclusions could be drawn for blunt trauma. ISRCTN 42061860.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                2013
                23 December 2013
                : 17
                : 6
                : R299
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Surgical Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, Zurich CH-8091, Switzerland
                [2 ]Swiss Paraplegic Center, Department of Intensive Care, Pain and Operative Medicine, Guido A. Zäch Strasse 1, Nottwil 6207, Switzerland
                [3 ]Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich 8001, Switzerland
                [4 ]Department of Anesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine, Cantonal Hospital of Muensterlingen, Spitalcampus 1, Muensterlingen 8596, Switzerland
                Article
                cc13168
                10.1186/cc13168
                4057504
                24365167
                dc8bca5f-20b0-4a9e-bda3-30cf39a0dbf7
                Copyright © 2013 Béchir et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 July 2013
                : 2 December 2013
                Categories
                Research

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article