Intensive care medicine · 2009
CONTRA: Hydroxyethyl starch solutions are unsafe in critically ill patients.
СтатьяОбзорКомментарийНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hartog Christiane, Reinhart Konrad
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To describe the risk-benefit profile of hydroxyethyl starch (HES).
METHODS: Narrative review.
RESULTS: (1) EFFICACY: no single clinical study or systemic review has shown that administration of any HES solution confers a clinically relevant benefit compared to crystalloids in critically ill patients or surgical patients in need of volume replacement. Contrary to beliefs expecting a ratio of 4:1 or more for crystalloid to colloid volume need, recent studies of goal-directed resuscitation observed much lower ratios of between 1 and 1.6. (2) SAFETY: HES administration is associated with coagulopathy, nephrotoxicity, pruritus and increased long-term mortality. Clinical studies claiming that modern HES 130/0.4 is safe have serious methodological drawbacks and do not adequately address the safety concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the complete lack of superiority in clinical utility studies and the wide spectrum of severe side effects, the use of HES in the ICU should be stopped. The belief that four times as much crystalloid as colloid fluid volume is needed for successful resuscitation is being seriously questioned.
METHODS: Narrative review.
RESULTS: (1) EFFICACY: no single clinical study or systemic review has shown that administration of any HES solution confers a clinically relevant benefit compared to crystalloids in critically ill patients or surgical patients in need of volume replacement. Contrary to beliefs expecting a ratio of 4:1 or more for crystalloid to colloid volume need, recent studies of goal-directed resuscitation observed much lower ratios of between 1 and 1.6. (2) SAFETY: HES administration is associated with coagulopathy, nephrotoxicity, pruritus and increased long-term mortality. Clinical studies claiming that modern HES 130/0.4 is safe have serious methodological drawbacks and do not adequately address the safety concerns.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the complete lack of superiority in clinical utility studies and the wide spectrum of severe side effects, the use of HES in the ICU should be stopped. The belief that four times as much crystalloid as colloid fluid volume is needed for successful resuscitation is being seriously questioned.