Dataset Information

Comparison of 6% hydroxyethyl starch and 5% albumin for volume replacement therapy in patients undergoing cystectomy (CHART): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: The use of artificial colloids is currently controversial, especially in Central Europe Several studies demonstrated a worse outcome in intensive care unit patients with the use of hydroxyethyl starch. This recently even led to a drug warning about use of hydroxyethyl starch products in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. The data on hydroxyethyl starch in non-critically ill patients are insufficient to support perioperative use.We are conducting a single-center, open-label, randomized, comparative trial with two parallel patient groups to compare human albumin 5% (test drug) with hydroxyethyl starch 6% 130/0.4 (comparator). The primary endpoint is cystatin C ratio, calculated as the ratio of the cystatin value at day 90 after surgery relative to the preoperative value. Secondary objectives are inter alia the evaluation of the influence of human albumin and hydroxyethyl starch on further laboratory chemical and clinical parameters, glycocalyx shedding, intensive care unit and hospital stay and acute kidney injury as defined by RIFLE criteria (risk of renal dysfunction, injury to the kidney, failure of kidney function, loss of kidney function, and end-stage kidney disease) criteria.There is a general lack of evidence on the relative safety and effects of hydroxyethyl starch compared with human albumin for volume replacement in a perioperative setting. Previously conducted studies of surgical patients in which researchers have compared different hydroxyethyl starch products included too few patients to properly evaluate clinical important outcomes such as renal function. In the present study in a high-risk patient population undergoing a major surgical intervention, we will determine if perioperative fluid replacement with human albumin 5% will have a long-term advantage over a third-generation hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 on the progression of renal dysfunction until 90 days after surgery.EudraCT number 2010-018343-34. Registered on 11 January 2010.

SUBMITTER: Kammerer T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4552376 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of 6% hydroxyethyl starch and 5% albumin for volume replacement therapy in patients undergoing cystectomy (CHART): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Kammerer Tobias T Klug Florian F Schwarz Michaela M Hilferink Sebastian S Zwissler Bernhard B von Dossow Vera V Karl Alexander A Müller Hans-Helge HH Rehm Markus M

Trials 20150828

<h4>Background</h4>The use of artificial colloids is currently controversial, especially in Central Europe Several studies demonstrated a worse outcome in intensive care unit patients with the use of hydroxyethyl starch. This recently even led to a drug warning about use of hydroxyethyl starch products in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. The data on hydroxyethyl starch in non-critically ill patients are insufficient to support perioperative use.<h4>Methods/design</h4>We are conducti ...[more]

PMID: 26314293

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:It is not known if use of colloid solutions containing hydroxyethyl starch (HES) to correct for intravascular deficits in high-risk surgical patients is either effective or safe. Objective:To evaluate the effect of HES 130/0.4 compared with 0.9% saline for intravascular volume expansion on mortality and postoperative complications after major abdominal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants:Multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of 775 adult patients at increased risk of postoperative kidney injury undergoing major abdominal surgery at 20 university hospitals in France from February 2016 to July 2018; final follow-up was in October 2018. Interventions:Patients were randomized to receive fluid containing either 6% HES 130/0.4 diluted in 0.9% saline (n?=?389) or 0.9% saline alone (n?=?386) in 250-mL boluses using an individualized hemodynamic algorithm during surgery and for up to 24 hours on the first postoperative day, defined as ending at 7:59 am the following day. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was a composite of death or major postoperative complications at 14 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included predefined postoperative complications within 14 days after surgery, durations of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and all-cause mortality at postoperative days 28 and 90. Results:Among 826 patients enrolled (mean age, 68 [SD, 7] years; 91 women [12%]), 775 (94%) completed the trial. The primary outcome occurred in 139 of 389 patients (36%) in the HES group and 125 of 386 patients (32%) in the saline group (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -3.3% to 10.0%]; relative risk, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.91-1.34]; P?=?.33). Among 12 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 11 showed no significant difference, but a statistically significant difference was found in median volume of study fluid administered on day 1: 1250 mL (interquartile range, 750-2000 mL) in the HES group and 1500 mL (interquartile range, 750-2150 mL) in the saline group (median difference, 250 mL [95% CI, 83-417 mL]; P?=?.006). At 28 days after surgery, 4.1% and 2.3% of patients had died in the HES and saline groups, respectively (difference, 1.8% [95% CI, -0.7% to 4.3%]; relative risk, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.79-3.94]; P?=?.17). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients at risk of postoperative kidney injury undergoing major abdominal surgery, use of HES for volume replacement therapy compared with 0.9% saline resulted in no significant difference in a composite outcome of death or major postoperative complications within 14 days after surgery. These findings do not support the use of HES for volume replacement therapy in such patients. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02502773.

Project description:BackgroundThe safety of perioperative intravenous hydroxyethyl starch (HES) products, specifically HES 130/0.4, continues to be the source of much debate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to update the existing evidence and gain further insight into the clinical effects of HES 130/0.4 on postoperative outcomes for volume replacement therapy in surgical patients.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2020 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on perioperative use of HES 130/0.4 in adult surgical patients. The primary outcome was postoperative mortality and secondary outcomes were the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT). The analysis was performed using the random-effects method and the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We performed the risk-of-bias assessment of eligible studies and assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsTwenty-five RCTs with 4111 participants were finally included. There were no statistical differences between HES 130/0.4 and other fluids in mortality at 30 days (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.86, p = 0.20), the incidence of AKI (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.53, p = 0.07), or requirement for RRT (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.53, p = 0.43). Overall, there was a moderate certainty of evidence for all the outcomes. There was no subgroup difference related to the type of surgery (p = 0.17) in the incidence of AKI. As for the type of comparator fluids, however, there was a trend that was not statistically significant (p = 0.06) towards the increased incidence of AKI in the HES 130/0.4 group (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.54) compared with the crystalloid group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.91). Subgroup analyses according to the type of surgery demonstrated consistent findings.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the use of HES 130/0.4 for volume replacement therapy compared with other fluids resulted in no significant difference in postoperative mortality or kidney dysfunction among surgical patients. Given the absent evidence of confirmed benefit and the potential trend of increased kidney injury, we cannot recommend the routine clinical use of HES 130/0.4 for volume replacement therapy in surgical patients from the perspective of benefit/risk profile. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to the limited sample size, and further well-powered RCTs are warranted.Trial registrationPROSPERO registry reference: CRD42020173058.

Project description:Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, Tenhunen J, Klemenzson G, Åneman A, Madsen KR, Møller MH, Elkjær JM, Poulsen LM, Bendtsen A, Winding R, Steensen M, Berezowicz P, Søe-Jensen P, Bestle M, Strand K, Wiis J, White JO, Thornberg KJ, Quist L, Nielsen J, Andersen LH, Holst LB, Thormar K, Kjældgaard AL, Fabritius ML, Mondrup F, Pott FC, Møller TP, Winkel P, Wetterslev J; 6S Trial Group; Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group: Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:124-34.Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is widely used for fluid resuscitation in ICUs, but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis.To assess the effects of HES 130/0.4 compared with a balanced crystalloid solution on mortality and end-stage kidney failure in patients with severe sepsis.Multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, randomized clinical trial, in patients with severe sepsis.Patients with severe sepsis admitted to the ICU received fluid resuscitation with either 6% HES 130/0.42 (Tetraspan) or Ringer’s acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day.Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 1.36; P=0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 were treated with renal replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P=0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P=0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline.Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal replacement therapy compared with those receiving Ringer's acetate.

Dataset Information

Comparison of 6% hydroxyethyl starch and 5% albumin for volume replacement therapy in patients undergoing cystectomy (CHART): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Comparison of 6% hydroxyethyl starch and 5% albumin for volume replacement therapy in patients undergoing cystectomy (CHART): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets