Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena, Germany.
Anesth Analg. 2011 Jan;112(1):156-64. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181eaff91. Epub 2010 Dec 2.
Despite evidence from clinical studies and meta-analyses that resuscitation with colloids or crystalloids is equally effective in critically ill patients, and despite reports from high-quality clinical trials and meta-analyses regarding nephrotoxic effects, increased risk of bleeding, and a trend toward higher mortality in these patients after the use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions, colloids remain popular and the use of HES solutions is increasing worldwide. We investigated the major rationales for colloid use, namely that colloids are more effective plasma expanders than crystalloids, that synthetic colloids are as safe as albumin, that HES solutions have the best risk/benefit profile among the synthetic colloids, and that the third-generation HES 130/0.4 has fewer adverse effects than older starches. Evidence from clinical studies shows that comparable resuscitation is achieved with considerably less crystalloid volumes than frequently suggested, namely, <2-fold the volume of colloids. Albumin is safe in intensive care unit patients except in patients with closed head injury. All synthetic colloids, namely, dextran, gelatin, and HES have dose-related side effects, which are coagulopathy, renal failure, and tissue storage. In patients with severe sepsis, higher doses of HES may be associated with excess mortality. The assumption that third-generation HES 130/0.4 has fewer adverse effects is yet unproven. Clinical trials on HES 130/0.4 have notable shortcomings. Mostly, they were not performed in intensive care unit or emergency department patients, had short observation periods of 24 to 48 hours, used cumulative doses below 1 daily dose limit (50 mL/kg), and used unsuitable control fluids such as other HES solutions or gelatins. In conclusion, the preferred use of colloidal solutions for resuscitation of patients with acute hypovolemia is based on rationales that are not supported by clinical evidence. Synthetic colloids are not superior in critically ill adults and children but must be considered harmful depending on the cumulative dose administered. Safe threshold doses need to be determined in studies in high-risk patients and observation periods of 90 days. Such studies on HES 130/0.4 are still lacking despite its widespread and increasing use. Because there are safer and equally effective alternatives in the form of crystalloids, use of synthetic colloids should be avoided except in the context of clinical studies.
尽管临床研究和荟萃分析表明,在危重病患者中,胶体复苏与晶体复苏同样有效,尽管高质量的临床试验和荟萃分析报告了胶体复苏的肾毒性作用、出血风险增加以及使用羟乙基淀粉(HES)溶液后这些患者的死亡率呈上升趋势,但胶体仍然很受欢迎,HES 溶液的使用在全球范围内正在增加。我们调查了胶体使用的主要理由,即胶体是比晶体更有效的血浆扩容剂,合成胶体与白蛋白一样安全,在合成胶体中,HES 溶液具有最佳的风险/获益比,第三代 HES 130/0.4 比旧淀粉具有更少的不良反应。临床研究表明,与经常建议的相比,用晶体溶液可以实现相当少的复苏,即,胶体体积的 <2 倍。白蛋白在重症监护病房患者中是安全的,除非患者有闭合性颅脑损伤。所有合成胶体,即右旋糖酐、明胶和 HES,都有剂量相关的副作用,包括凝血功能障碍、肾衰竭和组织储存。在严重脓毒症患者中,较高剂量的 HES 可能与死亡率增加有关。第三代 HES 130/0.4 具有较少不良反应的假设尚未得到证实。HES 130/0.4 的临床试验有明显的缺点。大多数临床试验都不是在重症监护病房或急诊科患者中进行的,观察期为 24 至 48 小时,使用的累积剂量低于每日剂量限制(50 mL/kg),并且使用了不适合的对照液,如其他 HES 溶液或明胶。总之,基于没有临床证据支持的理由,胶体溶液在急性低血容量患者的复苏中被优先使用。在重症成人和儿童中,合成胶体没有优势,但根据给予的累积剂量,必须被认为是有害的。需要在高危患者中进行研究以确定安全阈值剂量,并观察 90 天。尽管 HES 130/0.4 广泛使用且用量增加,但仍缺乏此类研究。由于晶体溶液形式有更安全和同样有效的替代品,因此除非在临床研究背景下,否则应避免使用合成胶体。