Smartest Doc
Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 versus 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis
Critical Care, 05/25/2012
Guidet B et al. – Significantly less volume was required to achieve hemodynamic stabilization (HDS) for HES versus NaCl in the initial phase of fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis patients without any difference for adverse events in both groups.
Methods- In order to compare the hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% HES 130/0.4 and NaCl 0.9% for HDS in patients with severe sepsis, the authors designed a prospective, multicenter, active–controlled, double–blind, randomized study in Intensive care units.
- 174 out of 196 patients reached HDS (88 and 86 patients for HES and NaCl, respectively).
- Significantly less HES was used to reach HDS versus NaCl (1,379 886 ml in the HES group and 1,709 1,164ml in the NaCl group [Mean difference=–331 1,033, 95% CI –640 to –21, p=0.0185).
- Time to reach HDS was 11.8 10.1 hours versus 14.3 11.1hours for HES and NaCl, respectively.
- Total quantity of study drug infused over four consecutive days, ICU and hospital LOS, and area under the curve of SOFA Score were comparable.
- Acute renal failure occurred in 24 (24.5%) and 19 (20%) patients for HES and NaCl, respectively (p=0.454).
- There was no difference between AKIN and RIFLE criteria among groups and no difference in mortality, coagulation, or pruritus up to 90days after treatment initiation.
