BACKGROUND:Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 may impair blood coagulation less than other HES solutions and, thus, may be used at larger doses without increasing the risk of postoperative bleeding. This study tested the hypothesis that volume replacement with 6% HES 130/0.4 at a dose of up to 50 ml/kg does not increase blood loss and transfusion requirements in elective coronary artery bypass surgery compared with 6% HES 200/0.5 at a dose of up to 33 ml/kg. METHODS:One hundred twenty adult patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass surgery were randomized to receive up to 50 ml/kg of 6% HES 130/0.4 or up to 33 ml/kg of 6% HES 200/0.5 for volume replacement during surgery and until 24 h thereafter. Volume requirements in excess of the respective maximum dose of HES were treated with gelatin. Colloid use was at the discretion of the attending physicians and not dictated by protocol. The primary outcome variable was chest tube drainage volume during the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: The data from 117 patients (HES 130/0.4, 59 patients; HES 200/0.5, 58 patients) who completed the study according to protocol were analyzed. The median volumes of HES administered were 49 and 33 ml/kg in the HES 130/0.4 and HES 200/0.5 groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Consequently, patients in the HES 130/0.4 group required less gelatin in addition to HES than those in the HES 200/0.5 group (medians: 7 ml/kg vs. 20 ml/kg, P < 0.001). The combined volumes of HES and gelatin were similar for both groups (P = 0.21). The 24-h chest tube drainage (medians: 660 ml vs. 705 ml, P = 0.60) did not differ significantly between the groups, nor did transfusion outcome. CONCLUSION: Six percent HES 130/0.4 at a median dose of 49 ml/kg did not increase blood loss and transfusion requirements in coronary artery bypass surgery compared with 6% HES 200/0.5 at a median dose of 33 ml/kg.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 may impair blood coagulation less than other HES solutions and, thus, may be used at larger doses without increasing the risk of postoperative bleeding. This study tested the hypothesis that volume replacement with 6% HES 130/0.4 at a dose of up to 50 ml/kg does not increase blood loss and transfusion requirements in elective coronary artery bypass surgery compared with 6% HES 200/0.5 at a dose of up to 33 ml/kg. METHODS: One hundred twenty adult patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass surgery were randomized to receive up to 50 ml/kg of 6% HES 130/0.4 or up to 33 ml/kg of 6% HES 200/0.5 for volume replacement during surgery and until 24 h thereafter. Volume requirements in excess of the respective maximum dose of HES were treated with gelatin. Colloid use was at the discretion of the attending physicians and not dictated by protocol. The primary outcome variable was chest tube drainage volume during the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: The data from 117 patients (HES 130/0.4, 59 patients; HES 200/0.5, 58 patients) who completed the study according to protocol were analyzed. The median volumes of HES administered were 49 and 33 ml/kg in the HES 130/0.4 and HES 200/0.5 groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Consequently, patients in the HES 130/0.4 group required less gelatin in addition to HES than those in the HES 200/0.5 group (medians: 7 ml/kg vs. 20 ml/kg, P < 0.001). The combined volumes of HES and gelatin were similar for both groups (P = 0.21). The 24-h chest tube drainage (medians: 660 ml vs. 705 ml, P = 0.60) did not differ significantly between the groups, nor did transfusion outcome. CONCLUSION: Six percent HES 130/0.4 at a median dose of 49 ml/kg did not increase blood loss and transfusion requirements in coronary artery bypass surgery compared with 6% HES 200/0.5 at a median dose of 33 ml/kg.
Authors: Konrad Reinhart; Anders Perner; Charles L Sprung; Roman Jaeschke; Frederique Schortgen; A B Johan Groeneveld; Richard Beale; Christiane S Hartog Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David J Gattas; Arina Dan; John Myburgh; Laurent Billot; Serigne Lo; Simon Finfer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 17.440