Joachim Boldt1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum der Stadt Ludwigshafen, Bremserstr. 79, 67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany. BoldtJ@gmx.net
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Correcting hypovolemia is fundamental when treating the critically ill. Different hydroxyethylstarch (HES) preparations with different physicochemical characteristics (mean molecular weight (Mw), molar substitution (MS), C2/C6 ratio, balanced/unbalanced) are available. The possible detrimental effect of HES on kidney function has become a major objection to using HES. METHODS: This review focuses on the effect of HES on kidney function. RESULTS: First and second-generation HES with high Mw (>200 kD) and high MS (>0.5) have been shown to impair kidney function in some studies of septic patients, especially when using hyperoncotic HES. More rapidly degradable HES preparations (Mw 130 kD; MS < 0.5) did not cause deterioration of kidney function in a variety of clinical conditions. Even when kidney function was impaired (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL) this HES preparation was without negative effect. Dissolving HES in a balanced solution instead of saline may further improve the safety of HES with regard to kidney function. Dose limitations of the specific HES preparation should be carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperoncotic HES should not be used in patients who are at risk of developing kidney dysfunction. In patients without preexisting kidney dysfunction there seems to be no negative effects of modern HES preparations. In septic patients with reduced kidney function (serum creatinine >2.5 mg/dL) HES should be used cautiously, because studies of these patients are not available. Dissolving HES in a balanced solution further improves the safety of HES with regard to kidney function. At present, there seems to be no good reason to generally ban use of HES in our patients.
INTRODUCTION: Correcting hypovolemia is fundamental when treating the critically ill. Different hydroxyethylstarch (HES) preparations with different physicochemical characteristics (mean molecular weight (Mw), molar substitution (MS), C2/C6 ratio, balanced/unbalanced) are available. The possible detrimental effect of HES on kidney function has become a major objection to using HES. METHODS: This review focuses on the effect of HES on kidney function. RESULTS: First and second-generation HES with high Mw (>200 kD) and high MS (>0.5) have been shown to impair kidney function in some studies of septicpatients, especially when using hyperoncotic HES. More rapidly degradable HES preparations (Mw 130 kD; MS < 0.5) did not cause deterioration of kidney function in a variety of clinical conditions. Even when kidney function was impaired (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL) this HES preparation was without negative effect. Dissolving HES in a balanced solution instead of saline may further improve the safety of HES with regard to kidney function. Dose limitations of the specific HES preparation should be carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS:Hyperoncotic HES should not be used in patients who are at risk of developing kidney dysfunction. In patients without preexisting kidney dysfunction there seems to be no negative effects of modern HES preparations. In septicpatients with reduced kidney function (serum creatinine >2.5 mg/dL) HES should be used cautiously, because studies of these patients are not available. Dissolving HES in a balanced solution further improves the safety of HES with regard to kidney function. At present, there seems to be no good reason to generally ban use of HES in our patients.
Authors: Joachim Boldt; Thorsten Brenner; Andreas Lehmann; Johannes Lang; Bernhard Kumle; Christiane Werling Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-03-29 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christiane S Hartog; Frank M Brunkhorst; Christoph Engel; Andreas Meier-Hellmann; Maximilian Ragaller; Tobias Welte; Evelyn Kuhnt; Konrad Reinhart Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 17.440