EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY OF USING HYDROXYETHYL STARCH IN THE BURN SHOCK MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2016-13-2-3-12
Abstract
The retrospective cohort comparative study was conducted in order to evaluate efficiency and safety of using 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 for managing burn shock. The enrollment criteria were as follows: men and women above 18 years old, thermal burns from 20 to 80% of the body surface, the need of infusion therapy, expected duration of the patient’s stay in the intensive care department for more than 3 days, the absence of acute renal failure at the moment of hospital admission. All patients were divided into two groups. The 1st group (HES+) included 24 patients who received infusion therapy for 3 days with Ringer’s solution and 6% HES 130/0.4 additionally, the 2nd group (HES-) included 25 patients who were treated only with Ringer’s solution. Hospital mortality in the group (HES+) made 45.8% (11 patients died), and in the group (HES-) it made 28.0% (7 patients died), p = 0.3182. The extended surface of lesion was the independent factor of acute renal failure development in those suffering from severe burn injury: OR = 1.09 (1.01–1.19), p = 0.04; Baux OR greater index = 1.09 (1.01–1.19), p = 0.02 and the need in catecholamines – OR = 12.7 (1.2–144.9), p = 0.04. The study showed no confident difference in the frequency of acute renal failure, in the need of substitution renal therapy and mortality in two groups of patients receiving and not receiving HES. Using HES solutions in doses not exceeding the recommended ones did not facilitated the reduction of infusion therapy volume.
About the Authors
V. A. BaginRussian Federation
V. A. Rudnov
Russian Federation
A. A. Savitskiy
Russian Federation
M. N. Аstafieva
Russian Federation
I. A. Korobko
Russian Federation
V. I. Veyn
Russian Federation
Ya. G. Bozhko
Russian Federation
T. V. Spilnik
Russian Federation
References
1. Kulabukhov V.V., Rudnov V.А. Analysis of compliance with the new strategy for managing sepsis patients and infection prevention during intensive therapy. Results of multicenter trial. Vestnik Anasteziol. i Reanimatol., 2015, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 7-13. (In Russ.)
2. Lekmanov A.U. Are the guidelines useful? Colloids/crystalloids - end of the war? (basing on the materials pf surviving sepsis campaign, 2012, part 1). Vestnik Anasteziol. i Reanimatol., 2014, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 61-67. (In Russ.)
3. Ahrns K.S. Trends in burn resuscitation: Shifting the focus from fluids to adequate endpoint monitoring, edema control, and adjuvant therapies. Crit. Care Nurs Clin. N. Am., 2004, vol. 16, pp. 75-98.
4. Annane D., Siami S., Jaber S. et al. Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock: The CRISTAL randomized trial. JAMA, 2013, vol. 310, no. 17, pp. 1809-1817.
5. Baux S., Mimoun M., Saade H. et al. Burns in the elderly. Burns, 1989, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 239-240.
6. Béchir M., Puhan M.A., Neff S.B. et al. Research early fluid resuscitation with hyperoncotic hydroxyethyl starch 200/0.5 (10%) in severe burn injury. Crit. Care, 2010, vol. 14, pp. R123.
7. Bellomo R., Ronco C., Kellum J.A. et al. Acute renal failure – definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit. Care, 2004, vol. 8, pp. R204–R212.
8. Béchir M., Puhan M.A., Fasshauer M. et al. Early fluid resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (6%) in severe burn injury: a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Crit. Care, 2013, vol. 17, pp. R299.
9. Berger M.M., Bernath M.A., Chiole´ro R.L. Resuscitation, anaesthesia and analgesia of the burned patient. Curr. Opin Anaesth., 2001, vol. 14, pp. 431-435.
10. Boussekey N., Darmon R., Langlois J. et al. Resuscitation with low volume hydroxyethylstarch 130 kDa/0.4 is not associated with acute kidney injury. Crit. Care, 2010, vol. 14, pp. R40.
11. Brunkhorst F.M., Engel C., Bloos F. et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pen-tastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N. Engl. J. Med., 2008, vol. 358, pp. 125-139.
12. Charlson M.E., Pompei P., Ales K.L. et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J. Chron. Dis., 1987, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 373-383.
13. Endorf F.W., Gamelli R.L. Inhalation injury, pulmonary perturbations, and fluid resuscitation. J. Burn. Care Res., 2007, vol. 28, pp. 80-83.
14. Faraklas I., Lam U., Cochran A. et al. Colloid normalizes resuscitation ratio in pediatric burns. J. Burn. Care Res., 2011, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 91-97.
15. Gattas D.J., Dan A., Myburgh J. et al. Fluid resuscitation with 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4 and 130/0.42) in acutely ill patients: systematic review of effects on mortality and treatment with renal replacement therapy. Int. Care Med., 2013, vol. 39, pp. 558-568.
16. Greenhalgh D.G. Burn resuscitation: the results of the ISBI/ABA survey. Burns, 2010, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 176-182.
17. Guidet B., Martinet O., Boulain T. et al. Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 vs. 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis: The CRYSTMAS study. Crit. Care, 2012, vol. 16, pp. R94.
18. Haase N., Perner A., Hennings L.I. et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38–0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BMJ, 2013, pp. 1839.
19. Holm C. Resuscitation in shock associated with burns. Tradition or evidence-based medicine?. Resuscitation, 2000, vol. 44, pp. 157-164.
20. Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of ran-domized controlled trials / Сochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers. BMJ, 1998, vol. 317, pp. 235-240.
21. Hydroxyethyl Starch Solutions: FDA Safety Communication – Boxed Warning on Increased Mortality and Severe Renal Injury and Risk of Bleeding / U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Page Last Updated: 06/24/2013 – http://www.fda.gov/ Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/ SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm358349.htm.
22. Ipaktchi K., Arbabi S. Advances in burn critical care. Crit. Care Med., 2006, vol. 34, pp. S239–S244.
23. Jeschke G.M., Kamolz L.P., Sjöberg F. et al. Handbook of Burns Volume 1: Acute Burn Care. New York. SpringerWein, 2012,
24. Lawrence A., Faraklas I., Watkins H. et al. Colloid administration normalizes resuscitation ratio and ameliorates «fluid creep». J. Burn. Care Res., 2010, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 40-47.
25. Levey A.S., Bosch J.P., Lewis J.B. et al. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann. Intern. Med., 1999, vol. 130, pp. 461-470.
26. Lobo D.N., Stanga Z., Aloysius M.M. et al. Effect of volume loading with 1 liter intravenous infusions of 0.9% saline, 4% succinylated gelatine (Gelofusine) and 6% hydroxyethyl starch (Voluven) on blood volume and endocrine responses: A randomized, three-way crossover study in healthy volunteers. Crit. Care Med., 2010, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 464-470.
27. Mutter T.C., Ruth C.A., Dart A.B. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2013, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. CD007594.
28. Myburgh J.A., Finfer S., Bellomo R. et al. Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care / CHEST Investigators, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group. N. Engl. J. Med., 2012, vol. 367, no. 20, pp. 1901-1911.
29. Navickis J.R., Greenhalgh D.G., Wilkes M.M. Albumin in burn shock resuscitation: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical studies. J. Burn. Care Res., 2014, pdfsjournals.Iww.com
30. Patel A., Waheed U., Brett S.J. Randomised trials of 6% tetrastarch (hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 or 0.42) for severe sepsis reporting mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Care Med., 2013, vol. 39, pp. 811-822.
31. Perner A., Haase N., Guttormsen A.B. et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis 6S Trial Group, Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group. N. Engl. J. Med., 2012, vol. 367, no. 2, pp. 124-134.
32. Pham T.N., Cancio L.C., Gibran N.S. American Burn Association practice guidelines burn shock resuscitation / American Burn Association. J. Burn. Care Res., 2008, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 257-266.
33. Vlachou E., Gosling P., Moiemen N.S. Hydroxyethylstarch supplementation in burn resuscitation – a prospective randomised controlled trial. Burns, 2010, vol. 36, pp. 984-991.
34. Zarychanski R., Abou-Setta A.M., Turgeon A.F. et al. Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 2013, vol. 309, no. 7, pp. 678-688.
Review
For citations:
Bagin V.A., Rudnov V.A., Savitskiy A.A., Аstafieva M.N., Korobko I.A., Veyn V.I., Bozhko Ya.G., Spilnik T.V. EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY OF USING HYDROXYETHYL STARCH IN THE BURN SHOCK MANAGEMENT. Messenger of ANESTHESIOLOGY AND RESUSCITATION. 2016;13(2):3-12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2016-13-2-3-12