BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: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. CONCLUSIONS: In penetrating trauma, HES provided significantly better lactate clearance and less renal injury than saline. No firm conclusions could be drawn for blunt trauma. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 42061860.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 traumapatients. CONCLUSIONS: In penetrating trauma, HES provided significantly better lactate clearance and less renal injury than saline. No firm conclusions could be drawn for blunt trauma. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 42061860.
Authors: M Sánchez-Sánchez; A Garcia-de-Lorenzo; L Cachafeiro; E Herrero; M J Asensio; A Agrifoglio; E Flores; B Estebanez; P Extremera; C Iglesias; J R Martinez Journal: Ann Burns Fire Disasters Date: 2016-09-30
Authors: Christiane S Hartog; Dorit Reuter; Wolfgang Loesche; Michael Hofmann; Konrad Reinhart Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 17.440