Literature DB >> 22513516

Efficacy and safety of 10% HES 130/0.4 versus 10% HES 200/0.5 for plasma volume expansion in cardiac surgery patients.

C Ertmer1, H Wulf, H Van Aken, P Friederich, C Mahl, F Bepperling, M Westphal, W Gogarten.   

Abstract

AIM: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are frequently used for perioperative volume replacement. Whereas older HES specimen tended to accumulate in the plasma and to cause negative effects on hemostasis, more recent products, e.g., HES 130/0.4, are characterised by improved pharmacological properties. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of 10% HES 130/0.4 and 10% HES 200/0.5.
METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of a prospective, randomised, double-blind, multi-center therapeutic equivalence trial, 76 patients undergoing elective on-pump cardiac surgery received perioperative volume replacement using either 10% HES 130/0.4 (N.=37) or 10% HES 200/0.5 (N.=39) up to a maximum dose of 20 mL kg-1.
RESULTS: Equivalent volumes of investigational medication were infused until 24 hours after the first administration (1577 vs. 1540 mL; treatment difference 37 [-150; 223] mL; P<0.0001 for equivalence). Whereas standard laboratory tests of coagulation were comparable between groups, von Willebrand factor activity on the first postoperative morning tended to be higher following treatment with 10% HES 130/0.4 as compared to 10% HES 200/0.5 (P=0.025) with this difference being statistically significant only in the per-protocol analysis (P=0.02). Treatment groups were comparable concerning other safety parameters and the incidence of adverse drug reactions. In particular, renal function was well preserved in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Ten percent HES 130/0.4 was equally effective and safe as compared to 10% HES 200/0.5 for volume therapy in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Postoperative coagulation and renal function, as measured by standard laboratory tests, were similar among groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22513516

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minerva Med        ISSN: 0026-4806            Impact factor:   4.806


  5 in total

1.  The use of meta-analyses for benefit/risk re-evaluations of hydroxyethyl starch.

Authors:  Christian J Wiedermann
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 2.  Hydroxyeyhyl starch: Controversies revisited.

Authors:  Rashmi Datta; Rajeev Nair; Anil Pandey; Nitish Gupta; Tapan Sahoo
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-10

3.  The impact of hydroxyethyl starches in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matthias Jacob; Jean-Luc Fellahi; Daniel Chappell; Andrea Kurz
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 9.097

4.  Effect of rapid plasma volume expansion during anesthesia induction on haemodynamics and oxygen balance in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

Authors:  Fu-qing Lin; Cheng Li; Li-jun Zhang; Shu-kun Fu; Guo-qiang Chen; Xiao-hu Yang; Chun-yan Zhu; Quan Li
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  Hydroxyethyl starch 6%, 130/0.4 vs. a balanced crystalloid solution in cardiopulmonary bypass priming: a randomized, prospective study.

Authors:  Hasan Alper Gurbuz; Ahmet Baris Durukan; Nevriye Salman; Murat Tavlasoglu; Elif Durukan; Halil İbrahim Ucar; Cem Yorgancioglu
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 1.637

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.