Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital of Munich, Nussbaumstrasse 20, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Aug 9;21:61. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-61.
Despite ongoing controversial expert discussions the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently recommended to suspend marketing authorisations for hydroxyethyl starch. This comment critically evaluates the line of arguments. Basically, the only indication for a colloid is intravascular hypovolemia. Crystalloid use appears reasonable to compensate ongoing extracellular losses beyond. In the hemodynamically instable patient this leads to the distinction between an initial resuscitation phase where colloids might be indicated and a crystalloidal maintenance phase thereafter. It is important to bear this in mind when reevaluating the studies the EMA referred to in the context of its recent decision: i) VISEP compared ringer's lactate to 10% HES 200/0.5 in septic patients and found an increased incidence of renal failure in HES receivers. Unfortunately, study treatment was started only after initial stabilization with HES, randomizing hemodynamically stable patients into a rational (crystalloids) and an irrational (high dose starch until ICU discharge) maintenance treatment. ii) 6S compared ringer's acetate to 6% HES 130/0.42 for fluid resuscitation in septic patients and found an increased need of renal replacement therapy and a higher mortality in the HES group. However, patients of both groups were again randomized only after initial stabilization with colloids, the actual comparison was, therefore, again rational vs. irrational. Beyond that, the documentation is partly fragmentary, leaving many important questions around the fate of the patients unanswered. iii) CHEST randomized ICU patients to receive saline or 6% HES 130/0.4 for fluid resuscitation. Actually, despite partly discussed in a different way, this trial showed no relevant differences in outcome. In all, two studies showed what happens to septic patients if starches are used in a way we do not observe in daily practice. The third one actually proves their safety. The benefit of perioperative goal-directed preload optimization using starches is unquestioned. Taking these informations into account, the recommendation of the EMA starches to be generally dangerous remains mysterious and incomprehensible. An authority being able to dictate behavior should stand clear from oppressively ending a worldwide expert discussion and step back into the role of the observer until science achieves an agreement.
尽管专家们仍在持续争论,但欧洲药品管理局(EMA)最近建议暂停羟乙基淀粉的营销授权。本文批判性地评估了这一观点。基本上,胶体的唯一适应证是血管内低血容量。晶体液的使用看起来是合理的,可以补偿细胞外持续丢失的液体。在血流动力学不稳定的患者中,这导致了在最初的复苏阶段可能使用胶体和随后的晶体液维持阶段之间的区别。在重新评估 EMA 在其最近决定中提到的研究时,牢记这一点非常重要:i)VISEP 将乳酸林格氏液与脓毒症患者的 10% HES 200/0.5 进行比较,发现 HES 接受者的肾衰竭发生率增加。不幸的是,研究治疗仅在使用 HES 初步稳定后开始,将血流动力学稳定的患者随机分为合理(晶体液)和不合理(高剂量淀粉直至 ICU 出院)维持治疗。ii)6S 将醋酸林格氏液与脓毒症患者的 6% HES 130/0.42 进行比较,用于液体复苏,发现 HES 组需要肾脏替代治疗的患者增加,死亡率更高。然而,两组患者再次仅在使用胶体初步稳定后进行随机分组,因此,实际比较是合理的与不合理的。除此之外,文件部分不完整,留下了许多关于患者命运的重要问题未得到解答。iii) CHEST 将 ICU 患者随机分为接受生理盐水或 6% HES 130/0.4 进行液体复苏。实际上,尽管以不同的方式讨论,该试验在结果上没有显示出明显的差异。总的来说,有两项研究表明,如果以我们在日常实践中没有观察到的方式使用淀粉,脓毒症患者会发生什么。第三项研究实际上证明了它们的安全性。围手术期目标导向的预负荷优化使用淀粉的益处是毫无疑问的。考虑到这些信息,EMA 建议淀粉一般是危险的,这仍然是神秘和不可理解的。一个能够发号施令的权威机构应该避免在全球范围内专家讨论中强行结束,并退回到观察者的角色,直到科学达成一致。