| Literature DB >> 20640110 |
Sukanya Mitra1, Purva Khandelwal.
Abstract
SUMMARY: The administration of intravenous fluids is one of the most common and universal interventions in medicine. Colloids are an alternative to the frequently used crystalloids, with highly variable use depending on a myriad of clinical variables. A colloid is defined as a high molecular weight (MW) substance that largely remains in the intravascular compartment, thereby generating an oncotic pressure. Colloids are considered to have a greater intravascular persistence when compared to crystalloids. All colloids, however, are clearly not the same. Differences in the physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetics and safety profile exist amongst various colloids. This review explores the different types of colloids, with their properties and usefulness as well as adverse effects. While all the available colloids are reviewed briefly (e.g., albumin, gelatin, dextran) with respect to their pharmacology, indications, advantages and disadvantages, particular emphasis is laid on the hydroxyethyl starches (HES) because of their rising prominence. It is shown that HES differ widely in their physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties, composition, usefulness, and especially in their adverse effect profiles. The third generation HES (tetrastarches), in particular, seem to offer a unique combination of safety and efficacy. Several issues related to this are discussed in detail. This review of the available clinical data demonstrates that HES should not be regarded as one homogenous group, and data for one product should not be automatically extrapolated to another. Thus, among the synthetic colloids, the tetrastarches appear to offer the best currently available compromise between efficacy, safety profile, and cost. They also appear to be the best suited for use in the intensive care setting. Finally, balanced (rather than saline-based) HES solutions appear promising as a plasma-adapted volume replacement strategy and may further refine the ongoing quest of finding the ideal fluid therapy.Entities:
Keywords: Albumin; Colloids; Dextran; Gelatin; Hydroxyethyl starch; Tetrastarch
Year: 2009 PMID: 20640110 PMCID: PMC2900092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Anaesth ISSN: 0019-5049
Characteristics of some available colloids.
| Product (Brand name) | Conc. (%) | Oncotic pressure (mmHg) | Initial volume expansion (%) | Persistence in the body (days) | Maximal daily dose (kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albumin | 4 | 20–29 | 80 | ||
| Albumin | 25 | 100–120 | 200–400 | ||
| Dextran 70 (Macrodex) | 6 | 56–68 | 120 | 28–42 | 1.5 g |
| Dextran 40 (Rheomacrodex) | 10 | 168–191 | 200 | 6 | 1.5 g |
| Fluid gelatin (Geloplasma) | 3 | 26–29 | 70 | 2–7 | |
| Urea-linked gelatin (Haemaccel) | 3, 5 | 25–29 | 70–80 | 2–7 | |
| HES 670/0.75 (Hextend) | 6 | 25–30 | 100 | 20 mL | |
| HES 450/0.7/5 (Hetastarch) | 6 | 25–30 | 100 | 5–6 | 20 mL |
| HES 260/0.45 (Pentastarch) | 10 | 55–60 | 100–150 | 5–6 | 33 mL |
| HES 200/0.62/10 (Elohes) | 6 | 25–30 | 110 | 6–7 | 20 mL |
| HES 200/0.5/6 (Hesteril) | 6 | 30–37 | 100 | 3–4 | 33 mL |
| HES 200/0.5/6 (Lomol) | 10 | 59–82 | 145 | 3–4 | 20 mL |
| HES 130/0.4/9 (Tetrastarch, Voluven) | 6 | 36 | 130 | 2–3 | 50 mL |
| HES 70/0.5/3 | 6 | 100 | 1–2 | 20 mL |
HES: hydroxyethyl starches. The first number appearing after HES refers to the molecular weight of the product in kilodaltons, the second number is its molar substitution ratio and the third one is the C2/C6 ratio (see text for explanations). Not all these products are available in India or with the same brand name.
Comparative efficacy and safety of albumin vs. HES.
| COLLOID | ALBUMIN | HETASTARCH | TETRASTARCH |
|---|---|---|---|
| COST | Expensive | Cheap | Expensive |
| USE | Long term | Short term | Any |
| PERIOPERATIVE: | |||
| COAGULATION PROFILE | No increased bleeding | Increased bleeding | No increased bleeding |
| RENALTRANSPLANTATION | Safe | Predisposes to acute renal failure, oliguria | No evidence of risk till date |
| PRE-EXISTINGIMPAIRMENT | |||
| ·RENAL | Safe | Osmotic nephrosis like lesions | No evidence of risk till date |
| ·HEPATIC | Safe | Ascitis, accumulation | No evidence of risk till date |