Dataset Information

Fluid loading in abdominal surgery - saline versus hydroxyethyl starch (FLASH Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Inappropriate fluid therapy during surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Few studies have examined the effects of particular types of fluids (crystalloid or colloid solutions) in surgical patients, especially with the goal of hemodynamic optimization. Isotonic saline is the most commonly used fluid worldwide but may be associated with potential nephrotoxicity. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are widely used in surgical patients as a component of goal-directed fluid optimization strategies, but several large multicenter studies have suggested increased rates of acute kidney injury and adverse events with the use of HES in ICU patients. Despite what may be inferred from physiological studies, the benefit and harm of 0.9 % saline and HES during hemodynamic therapy have not been clearly established in surgical patients.The FLASH trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, two-arm trial, randomizing 826 patients with moderate-to-high risk of postoperative complications to receive 6 % HES 130/0.4 or 0.9 % saline during individualized goal-directed fluid optimization. The primary outcome measure is a composite of death or major postoperative complications within 14 days following surgery. The sample size will allow the detection of a 10 % absolute between-group difference in the primary outcome measure with a type 1 error rate of 5 % and power of 95 %, assuming a 5 % mortality rate and 20 % morbidity (thus 25 % for the composite endpoint).The FLASH trial may provide important data on the efficacy and safety of commonly used fluid solutions and could have a significant impact on future treatment of surgical patients.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02502773 . Registered 16 June 2015.

SUBMITTER: Futier E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4687283 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fluid loading in abdominal surgery - saline versus hydroxyethyl starch (FLASH Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Futier Emmanuel E Biais Matthieu M Godet Thomas T Bernard Lise L Rolhion Christine C Bourdier Justine J Morand Dominique D Pereira Bruno B Jaber Samir S

Trials 20151221

<h4>Background</h4>Inappropriate fluid therapy during surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Few studies have examined the effects of particular types of fluids (crystalloid or colloid solutions) in surgical patients, especially with the goal of hemodynamic optimization. Isotonic saline is the most commonly used fluid worldwide but may be associated with potential nephrotoxicity. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are widely used in surgical patients as a component of g ...[more]

PMID: 26690683

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:While hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are not recommended any longer in critically ill patients, data on efficacy and safety during surgery are still limited.In a randomized controlled trial 63 patients were assigned to receive 10% HES (130/0.42), 6% HES (130/0.42), or crystalloid within a goal-directed hemodynamic algorithm during pancreatic surgery. The primary endpoints were intraoperative volume of HES and time until fully on oral diet.The trial was terminated early upon recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee due to futility for efficacy at a planned interim analysis. The intraoperative volume of HES was not different between 10% and 6% HES group (2000 [1500; 2250] vs 2250 [1750; 3000] mL, P=.059). However, considering an inhomogeneity of patient's body weight between HES groups, there was a significant difference in intraoperative volume of HES between 10% and 6% group after adjusting for patient's body weight (24.0 [21.6; 28.3] vs 33.3 [28.2; 46.2] mL kg BW, P?=?.002). Patients in the HES groups required less additional fluid after dose limit than those in the crystalloid group, resulting in lower intraoperative net balances. The time until fully on oral diet was not different between all study groups. Applying KDIGO oliguria criterion, patients receiving 10% HES had more AKI compared to patients receiving crystalloids (86.7 vs 45.0%, P?=?.010), whereas those receiving 6% HES and crystalloids did not differ (58.8 vs 45.0%, P?=?.253). Further explorative analyses using a gray-zone approach indicated that patients receiving 6% HES below 18.8 mL kg will not experience AKI with near certainty.After adjusting for patient's body weight, patients receiving 6% HES required more volume of HES than patients receiving 10% HES. The relation of 140% represents very well the volume effect of a hyperoncotic 10% HES solution. Nonetheless, both HES solutions were similarly effective in reducing intraoperative fluid administration compared with crystalloid, but this did not result into differences in gastrointestinal outcomes. Patients receiving 10% HES showed an increased rate of AKI, whereas those receiving 6% HES and crystalloid did not differ. However, 6% HES should not be applied beyond 18 mL kg during surgery.

Project description:BackgroundDespite decades of investigation, the balance of clinical risks and benefits of fluid supplementation with starch remain unresolved. Patient-centered outcomes have not been well explored in a "real-world" trial in cardiac surgery.ObjectiveWe sought to compare a starch-based fluid strategy with a saline-based fluid strategy in the cardiac surgery patient.DesignA pragmatic blinded randomized controlled trial comparing starch-based with saline-based fluid strategy.SettingA large tertiary academic center in London Ontario between September 2009 and February 2011.ParticipantsPatients undergoing planned, isolated coronary revascularization.MeasurementsSerum creatinine and patient weight were measured daily postoperatively.MethodsPatients were randomized to receive 6% hydroxyethyl starch (Voluven) or saline for perioperative fluid requirements. Fluid administration was not protocolized. Co-primary outcomes were incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and maximum postoperative weight gain. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, transfusion, inotropic and ventilator support, and fluid utilization.ResultsThe study was prematurely terminated due to resource limitations. A total of 69 patients (19% female, mean age = 65) were randomized. Using RIFLE criteria for AKI, "risk" occurred in 12 patients in each group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5-1.9; P = 1.00), whereas "injury" occurred in 7 of 35 (20%) and 3 of 34 (9%) of patients in the starch and saline groups, respectively (RR = 2.3; 95% CI = 0.6-8.1; P = .31). Maximum weight gain, bleeding and blood product usage, and overall fluid requirement were similar between groups.LimitationsThe study had to be prematurely terminated due to resource limitations which led to a small sample size which was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the primary outcomes.ConclusionsThis pragmatic double-blinded randomized controlled trial revealed a number of interesting hypothesis-generating trends and confirmed the feasibility of undertaking a logistically complex trial in a pragmatic fashion.

Project description:There are limited data on the efficacy of early fluid resuscitation with third-generation hydroxyethyl starch (HES 130) in burn injury. Adverse effects of HES on survival and organ function have been reported.In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 48 patients with severe burn injury were assigned to receive either lactated Ringer's solution plus 6% HES 130/0.4 in a ratio of 2:1 or lactated Ringer's solution with no colloid supplement for the first 72 hours. Primary outcome parameter was the group difference of administered total fluid from intensive care unit (ICU) admission up to day 3. Secondary outcomes included kidney and lung injury and failure, length of stay, and mortality.Three-day totals of administered resuscitation fluid (medians) were 21,190 mL in the lactated Ringer's group and 19,535 mL in the HES group (HES: -1,213 mL; P?=?0.39). Creatinine levels from day 1 to 3 (HES: +0.4 ?mol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.7 to 19.5; P?=?0.97) and urinary outputs from day 1 to 3 (HES: -58 mL; 95% CI -400 to 283; P?=?0.90) were not different. Six patients in each group developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.35 to 2.64; P?=?0.95). Length of ICU stay (HES vs. lactated Ringer's: 28 vs. 24 days; P?=?0.80) and length of hospital stay (31 vs. 29 days; P?=?0.57) were similar. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 4 patients in each group (risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.27 to 4.45; P?=?0.95), and in-hospital mortality was 8 in the HES group vs. 5 patients in the lactated Ringer's group (hazard ratio 1.86; 95% CI 0.56 to 6.19; P?=?0.31).There was no evidence that early fluid resuscitation with balanced HES 130/0.4 (6%) in addition to lactated Ringer's solution would lead to a volume-sparing effect in severe burn injury. Together with the findings that early renal function, incidence of ARDS, length of stay, and mortality were not negatively influenced by HES in this setting, balanced HES 130/0.4 (6%) plus lactated Ringer's solution could not be considered superior to lactated Ringer's solution alone.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01012648.

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.

Project description:Liberal fluid strategies in critically ill patients are associated with harm, thought to be due to endothelial and glycocalyx injury. As the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial not only failed to report survival benefit with restrictive fluids but was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury, we hypothesized that factors other than endothelial and glycocalyx injury were likely to account for these findings. Consequently, we measured injury biomarkers in a cohort of the restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial.DesignThe restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery trial was an international, randomized, assessor-blinded trial comparing restrictive with liberal IV fluid regimens that represented traditional care in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.Setting and patientsCohort of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery bloods was collected at a single major site (161 patients) prior to, day 1 and day 3 after surgery.InterventionBloods were blindly and randomly batch analyzed for plasma markers of endothelial/glycocalyx injury-angiopoietin-1, angiopoietin-2, soluble tyrosine-protein kinase-2 receptor, soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1, syndecan, and tumor necrosis factor-α. Data were examined as restrictive versus liberal enrollment groups and high versus low (± 5,000 mL) fluid groups. Differences were examined by linear mixed modeling.Measurement and main resultsThere were no significant differences in any biomarkers between the restrictive (n = 75) and liberal (n = 86) groups. When examined as low (n = 81) and high (n = 79) fluid groups, plasma angiopoietin-2 (p = 0.009) and soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1 (p = 0.01) were elevated in the high fluid group. There were no differences in other biomarkers.ConclusionsAlthough these results are consistent with previous findings of vascular injury following liberal fluid therapy, they suggest alternative mechanisms underlie the clinical outcomes from restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery study.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT01424150.

Dataset Information

Fluid loading in abdominal surgery - saline versus hydroxyethyl starch (FLASH Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Fluid loading in abdominal surgery - saline versus hydroxyethyl starch (FLASH Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets