PURPOSE: Hydroxyethyl starch solutions (HES) are plasma volume expanders which affect hemostasis. Newer HES 130/0.4 is said to be safer. Reevaluation of published evidence is necessary after the recent retraction of studies. METHODS: Systematic review of studies assessing HES 130/0.4 effects on hemostasis by thrombelastography (TEG, ROTEM) or Sonoclot (SCR) in comparison with crystalloid or albumin control fluids was performed. Only studies which provided statistical comparisons between study fluids were analyzed. Studies were divided into in vitro or in vivo hemodilution studies. We assessed study quality, HES effects which differed significantly from controls, values outside normal range, degree of hemodilution, and cumulative HES dose. RESULTS: Seventeen in vitro and seven in vivo hemodilution studies were analyzed. Four studies reported quality control measures. Nineteen studies (all 15 ROTEM studies, 3 of 5 in vitro TEG, and 1 of 2 SCR studies) showed a significant hypocoagulatory effect of HES 130/0.4 on clot formation, while clotting time was not uniformly affected. Three in vivo TEG studies with low HES doses or cancer patients found mixed or nonsignificant results. In studies which provided normal ranges (n = 9), more values were outside normal ranges in the HES than in the control groups (87/122 vs. 58/122, p < 0.001). Dose effects were apparent in the in vitro studies, which investigated higher dilutions up to 80%. In vivo studies were fewer and did not investigate doses >40 ml/kg. CONCLUSIONS: HES 130/0.4 administration results in a weaker and smaller clot. Until results from well-designed clinical trials are available, safer fluids should be chosen for patients with impaired coagulation.
PURPOSE:Hydroxyethyl starch solutions (HES) are plasma volume expanders which affect hemostasis. Newer HES 130/0.4 is said to be safer. Reevaluation of published evidence is necessary after the recent retraction of studies. METHODS: Systematic review of studies assessing HES 130/0.4 effects on hemostasis by thrombelastography (TEG, ROTEM) or Sonoclot (SCR) in comparison with crystalloid or albumin control fluids was performed. Only studies which provided statistical comparisons between study fluids were analyzed. Studies were divided into in vitro or in vivo hemodilution studies. We assessed study quality, HES effects which differed significantly from controls, values outside normal range, degree of hemodilution, and cumulative HES dose. RESULTS: Seventeen in vitro and seven in vivo hemodilution studies were analyzed. Four studies reported quality control measures. Nineteen studies (all 15 ROTEM studies, 3 of 5 in vitro TEG, and 1 of 2 SCR studies) showed a significant hypocoagulatory effect of HES 130/0.4 on clot formation, while clotting time was not uniformly affected. Three in vivo TEG studies with low HES doses or cancerpatients found mixed or nonsignificant results. In studies which provided normal ranges (n = 9), more values were outside normal ranges in the HES than in the control groups (87/122 vs. 58/122, p < 0.001). Dose effects were apparent in the in vitro studies, which investigated higher dilutions up to 80%. In vivo studies were fewer and did not investigate doses >40 ml/kg. CONCLUSIONS:HES 130/0.4 administration results in a weaker and smaller clot. Until results from well-designed clinical trials are available, safer fluids should be chosen for patients with impaired coagulation.
Authors: Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Andrew F Shorr; William L Macias; Marin J Kollef; Marcel Levi; Konrad Reinhart; David R Nelson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Saskia E M Schols; Marion A H Feijge; Marcus D Lancé; Karly Hamulyák; Hugo ten Cate; Johan W M Heemskerk; Elisabeth C M van Pampus Journal: Transfusion Date: 2008-07-23 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Alexey A Schramko; Raili T Suojaranta-Ylinen; Anne H Kuitunen; Sinikka I Kukkonen; Tomi T Niemi Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Nicolai Haase; Sisse Rye Ostrowski; Jørn Wetterslev; Theis Lange; Morten Hylander Møller; Hamid Tousi; Morten Steensen; Frank Pott; Peter Søe-Jensen; Jonas Nielsen; Peter Buhl Hjortrup; Pär Ingemar Johansson; Anders Perner Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Anders Perner; Nicolai Haase; Per Winkel; Anne B Guttormsen; Jyrki Tenhunen; Gudmundur Klemenzson; Rasmus G Müller; Anders Aneman; Jørn Wetterslev Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christoph Johannes Schlimp; Janne Cadamuro; Cristina Solomon; Heinz Redl; Herbert Schöchl Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Julian Bion; Rinaldo Bellomo; John Myburgh; Anders Perner; Konrad Reinhart; Simon Finfer Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 17.440