BACKGROUND: This prospective observational study compared the volume effect between hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and crystalloid solution and its context dependency in intraoperative goal-directed fluid management. METHODS: With institutional review board (IRB) approval, 35 patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery were enrolled. Fluid challenge consisting of 250 ml of either bicarbonate Ringer solution (BRS) or low molecular weight pentastarch (HES 70/0.5) was given to maintain stroke volume index >35 ml/m2. The context of fluid challenge was classified as related to either epidural block (EB) or blood loss (BL) or as nonspecific. The primary end point was the interval between index fluid challenge and the next fluid challenge, and the secondary end point was the hemodynamic parameter at the end of fluid challenge. Differences in these parameters in each clinical context were compared between BRS and HES 70/0.5. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-eight, 77, and 127 fluid challenges were classified as related to EB and BL and as nonspecific, respectively. In the nonspecific condition, the median (range) interval after fluid challenge with HES 70/0.5 and BRS was 45 (11-162) min and 18 (8-44) min, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant. Also, mean arterial pressure and stroke volume index significantly increased, whereas stroke volume variation significantly decreased after fluid challenge with HES 70/0.5 compared with BRS. Such differences were not observed in the other situations. CONCLUSIONS: HES 70/0.5 exerted larger volume effects than did crystalloid under nonspecific conditions. However, similar volume effects were observed during volume loss and extensive sympathetic blockade.
BACKGROUND: This prospective observational study compared the volume effect between hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and crystalloid solution and its context dependency in intraoperative goal-directed fluid management. METHODS: With institutional review board (IRB) approval, 35 patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery were enrolled. Fluid challenge consisting of 250 ml of either bicarbonate Ringer solution (BRS) or low molecular weight pentastarch (HES 70/0.5) was given to maintain stroke volume index >35 ml/m2. The context of fluid challenge was classified as related to either epidural block (EB) or blood loss (BL) or as nonspecific. The primary end point was the interval between index fluid challenge and the next fluid challenge, and the secondary end point was the hemodynamic parameter at the end of fluid challenge. Differences in these parameters in each clinical context were compared between BRS and HES 70/0.5. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-eight, 77, and 127 fluid challenges were classified as related to EB and BL and as nonspecific, respectively. In the nonspecific condition, the median (range) interval after fluid challenge with HES 70/0.5 and BRS was 45 (11-162) min and 18 (8-44) min, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant. Also, mean arterial pressure and stroke volume index significantly increased, whereas stroke volume variation significantly decreased after fluid challenge with HES 70/0.5 compared with BRS. Such differences were not observed in the other situations. CONCLUSIONS:HES 70/0.5 exerted larger volume effects than did crystalloid under nonspecific conditions. However, similar volume effects were observed during volume loss and extensive sympathetic blockade.
Authors: Dileep N Lobo; Zeno Stanga; Mark M Aloysius; Catherine Wicks; Quentin M Nunes; Katharine L Ingram; Lorenz Risch; Simon P Allison Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: John A Myburgh; Simon Finfer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Laurent Billot; Alan Cass; David Gattas; Parisa Glass; Jeffrey Lipman; Bette Liu; Colin McArthur; Shay McGuinness; Dorrilyn Rajbhandari; Colman B Taylor; Steven A R Webb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas Standl; Marc-Alexander Burmeister; Frank Schroeder; Eike Currlin; Jan Schulte am Esch; Marc Freitag; Jochen Schulte am Esch Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Marcel R Lopes; Marcos A Oliveira; Vanessa Oliveira S Pereira; Ivaneide Paula B Lemos; Jose Otavio C Auler; Frédéric Michard Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Denise P Veelo; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten S Ouwehand; Bart F Geerts; Maarten C J Anderegg; Susan van Dieren; Benedikt Preckel; Jan M Binnekade; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Markus W Hollmann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 3.240