Haemodynamic response to crystalloids or colloids in shock: an exploratory subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Comparison of 4% Albumin and Ringer's Acetate on Hemodynamics in On-pump Cardiac Surgery: An Exploratory Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Compare hemodynamics between 4% albumin and Ringer's acetate.

DESIGN

Exploratory analysis of the double-blind randomized ALBumin In Cardiac Surgery trial.

SETTING

Single-center study in Helsinki University Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

We included 1,386 on-pump cardiac surgical patients.

INTERVENTION

We used 4% albumin or Ringer's acetate administration for cardiopulmonary bypass priming, volume replacement intraoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Hypotension (time-weighted average mean arterial pressure of <65 mmHg) and hyperlactatemia (time-weighted average blood lactate of >2 mmol/L) incidences were compared between trial groups in the operating room (OR), and early (0-6 hours) and late (6-24 hours) postoperatively. Associations of hypotension and hyperlactatemia with the ALBumin In Cardiac Surgery primary outcome (≥1 major adverse event [MAE]) were studied. In these time intervals, hypotension occurred in 118, 48, and 17 patients, and hyperlactatemia in 313, 131, and 83 patients. Hypotension and hyperlactatemia associated with MAE occurrence. Hypotension did not differ between the groups (albumin vs Ringer's: OR, 8.8% vs 8.5%; early postoperatively, 2.7% vs 4.2%; late postoperatively, 1.2% vs 1.3%; all p > 0.05). In the albumin group, hyperlactatemia was less frequent late postoperatively (2.9% vs 9.1%; p < 0.001), but not earlier (OR, 22.4% vs 23.6%; early postoperatively, 7.9% vs 11.0%; both p > 0.025 after Bonferroni-Holm correction).

CONCLUSIONS

In on-pump cardiac surgery, hypotension and hyperlactatemia are associated with the occurrence of ≥1 MAE. Compared with Ringer's acetate, albumin did not decrease hypotension and decreased hyperlactatemia only late postoperatively. Albumin's modest hemodynamic effect is concordant with the finding of no difference in MAEs between albumin and Ringer's acetate in the ALBumin In Cardiac Surgery trial.

Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use

PURPOSE

Nowadays, it is largely accepted that albumin should not be used in hypoalbuminemia or for nutritional purpose. The most discussed indication of albumin at present is the resuscitation in shock states, especially distributive shocks such as septic shock. The main evidence-based indication is also liver disease. In this review, we provided updated evidence-based instruction for definite and potential indications of albumin administration in clinical practice, with appropriate dosing and duration.

METHODS

Data collection was carried out until November 2023 by search of electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. GRADE system has been used to determine the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for each albumin indication.

RESULTS

A total of 165 relevant studies were included in this review. Fluid replacement in plasmapheresis and liver diseases, including hepatorenal syndrome, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and large-volume paracentesis, have a moderate to high quality of evidence and a strong recommendation for administering albumin. Moreover, albumin is used as a second-line and adjunctive to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in hypovolemic shock, sepsis and septic shock, severe burns, toxic epidermal necrolysis, intradialytic hypotension, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, major surgery, non-traumatic brain injury, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and severe and refractory edema with hypoalbuminemia has a low to moderate quality of evidence and weak recommendation to use. Also, in modest volume paracentesis, severe hyponatremia in cirrhosis has a low to moderate quality of evidence and a weak recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Albumin administration is most indicated in management of cirrhosis complications. Fluid resuscitation or treatment of severe and refractory edema, especially in patients with hypoalbuminemia and not responding to other treatments, is another rational use for albumin. Implementation of evidence-based guidelines in hospitals can be an effective measure to reduce inappropriate uses of albumin.

Preperitoneal pelvic balloon tamponade-an effective intervention to control pelvic injury hemorrhage in a swine model

Objective: This study aimed to estimate the effects of the volume of preperitoneal balloon (PPB) on arterial and venous hemorrhage in a swine pelvic fracture model. Methods: Twenty-four swine were randomized into 0-mL, 500-mL, 800-mL, and 1000-mL intra-hematoma PPB groups. They were subjected to open-book pelvic fracture and reproducible injuries in the external iliac artery and vein. The pelvic binder and IH-PPBs with different volumes of fluid were applied to control the active hemorrhage after arterial and venous injuries. The survival time and rate during 60-min observation and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) images were the primary endpoints in this study. Secondary endpoints included survival rate within 70 min, peritoneal pressure, hemodynamics, blood loss, infusion fluid, blood pH, and lactate concentration. Results: Our results indicated that the 800-mL and 1000-mL groups had a higher survival rate (0%, 50%, 100% and 100% for 0, 500, 800, and 1000-mL groups respectively; p < 0.0001) and longer survival time (13.83 ± 2.64, 24.50 ± 6.29, 55.00 ± 6.33, and 60.00 ± 0.00 min for 0, 500, 800, and 1,000 groups respectively; p < 0.0005) than the 0-mL or 500-mL groups during the 60 min observation. Contrastingly, survival rate and time were comparable between 800-mL and 1000-mL groups during the 60-min observation. The IH-PPB volume was associated with an increase in the pressure of the balloon and the preperitoneal pressure but had no effect on the bladder pressure. Lastly, the 1000-mL group had a higher mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance than the 800-mL group. Conclusion: IH-PPB volume-dependently controls vascular bleeding after pelvic fracture in the swine model. IH-PPB with a volume of 800 mL and 1000 mL efficiently managed pelvic fracture-associated arterial and venous hemorrhage and enhanced survival time and rate in the swine model without evidences of visceral injury.

[Essential aspects during the resuscitation of intravascular volume in polytraumatized patients]

Trauma is the leading cause of death in the first four decades of life, responsible for 3.5 million deaths a year and carrying a high economic and social impact. Hemorrhagic shock is the consequence of injuries in these patients. Despite extensive knowledge about its pathophysiology and many replacement drugs and therapies, resuscitation of the intravascular volume sometimes is insufficient and ineffective. Hemorrhagic shock, resulting in macro and microvascular changes that favor the development of anaerobic metabolism, is associated with multiple complications that can lead to the demise of the patient. The purpose of this article is to describe the essential aspects that should be taken into account during the resuscitation of the intravascular volume of multiple trauma patients. We conducted a search and review of the available literature on the resuscitation of trauma patients. Reference searches were conducted in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cumed, SciELO, EBSCO, Hinari, Cochrane databases. We reviewed the historical evolution of volume replacement in the polytrauma patient, endothelial glycocalyx, changes in the Starling law paradigm, goal-guided resuscitation, the different fluids used during resuscitation, monitoring, and the concepts of damage control resuscitation and damage control surgery.

Choice of fluids in critically ill patients

Background

Fluids are by far the most commonly administered intravenous treatment in patient care. During critical illness, fluids are widely administered to maintain or increase cardiac output, thereby relieving overt tissue hypoperfusion and hypoxia.

Main text

Until recently, because of their excellent safety profile, fluids were not considered “medications”. However, it is now understood that intravenous fluid should be viewed as drugs. They affect the cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal and immune systems. Fluid administration should therefore always be accompanied by careful consideration of the risk/benefit ratio, not only of the additional volume being administered but also of the effect of its composition on the physiology of the patient. Apart from the need to constantly assess fluid responsiveness, it is also important to periodically reconsider the type of fluid being administered and the evidence regarding the relationship between specific disease states and different fluid solutions.

Conclusions

The current review presents the state of the art regarding fluid solutions and presents the existing evidence on routine fluid management of critically ill patients in specific clinical settings (sepsis, Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome, major abdominal surgery, acute kidney injury and trauma).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0669-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people

BACKGROUND

Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.