The Role of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor Neurotransmission and Precision Medicine in Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia

While the world's population is aging, the prevalence of dementia and the associated behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) rises rapidly. BPSD are associated with worsening of cognitive function and poorer prognosis. No pharmacological treatment has been approved to be beneficial for BPSD to date. Dysfunction of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR)-related neurotransmission leads to cognitive impairment and behavioral changes, both of which are core symptoms of BPSD. Memantine, an NMDAR partial antagonist, is used to treat moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). On the other hand, a D-amino acid oxidase inhibitor improved early-phase AD. Whether to enhance or to attenuate the NMDAR may depend on the phases of dementia. It will be valuable to develop biomarkers indicating the activity of NMDAR, particularly in BPSD. In addition, recent reports suggest that gender difference exists in the treatment of dementia. Selecting subpopulations of patients with BPSD who are prone to improvement with treatment would be important. We reviewed literatures regarding the treatment of BPSD, focusing on the NMDAR-related modulation and precision medicine. Future studies examining the NMDAR modulators with the aid of potential biomarkers to tailor the treatment for individualized patients with BPSD are warranted.

Safety of gelatin solutions for the priming of cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety of gelatin versus hydroxyethyl starches (HES) and crystalloids when used for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)-priming in cardiac surgery. MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase and CENTRAL were searched. We included only randomized, controlled trials comparing CPB-priming with gelatin with either crystalloids or HES-solutions of the newest generation. The primary endpoint was the blood loss during the first 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included perioperative transfusion requirements, postoperative kidney function, postoperative ventilation times and length of stay on the intensive care unit. Sixteen studies were identified, of which only ten met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 824 adult patients: 4 studies compared gelatin with crystalloid, and 6 studies gelatin with HES priming. Only 2 of the studies comparing HES and gelatin reported postoperative blood loss after 24 hours. No significant difference in postoperative blood loss was found when results of both studies were pooled (SMD -0.12; 95% CI: -0.49, 0.25; P=0.52). Likewise, the pooled results of 3 studies comparing gelatin and crystalloids as a priming solution could not demonstrate significant differences in postoperative bleeding after 24 hours (SMD -0.07; 95% CI: -0.40, 0.26; P=0.68). No differences regarding any of the secondary outcomes could be identified. This systematic review suggests gelatins to have a safety profile which is non-inferior to modern-generation tetrastarches or crystalloids. However, the grade of evidence is rated low owing to the poor methodological quality of the included studies, due to inconsistent outcome reporting and lack of uniform endpoint definitions.

Meta-analysis of colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill, trauma and surgical patients

Background

There is uncertainty regarding the safety of different volume replacement solutions. The aim of this study was systematically to review evidence of crystalloid versus colloid solutions, and to determine whether these results are influenced by trial design or clinical setting.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared crystalloids with colloids as volume replacement solutions in patients with traumatic injuries, those undergoing surgery and in critically ill patients. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for mortality and major morbidity including renal injury were pooled using fixed-effect and random-effects models.

Results

Some 59 RCTs involving 16 889 patients were included in the analysis. Forty-one studies (69 per cent) were found to have selection, detection or performance bias. Colloid administration did not lead to increased mortality (32 trials, 16 647 patients; OR 0·99, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 1·06), but did increase the risk of developing acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (9 trials, 11 648 patients; OR 1·35, 1·17 to 1·57). Sensitivity analyses that excluded small and low-quality studies did not substantially alter these results. Subgroup analyses by type of colloid showed that increased mortality and renal replacement therapy were associated with use of pentastarch, and increased risk of renal injury and renal replacement therapy with use of tetrastarch. Subgroup analysis indicated that the risks of mortality and renal injury attributable to colloids were observed only in critically ill patients with sepsis.

Conclusion

Current general restrictions on the use of colloid solutions are not supported by evidence.

The impact of hydroxyethyl starches in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

Introduction

Recent studies in septic patients showed that adverse effects of hydroxyethyl starches (HESs) possibly outweigh their benefits in severely impaired physiological haemostasis. It remains unclear whether this also applies to patient populations that are less vulnerable. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the impact of various HES generations on safety and efficacy endpoints in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the English or German language comparing the use of HES to any other colloid or crystalloid during open heart surgery.

Results

Blood loss and transfusion requirements were higher for older starches with mean molecular weights more than 200 kDa compared to other volume substitutes. In contrast, this effect was not observed with latest-generation tetrastarches (130/0.4), which performed even better when compared to albumin (blood loss of tetrastarch versus albumin: standardised mean difference (SMD), −0.34; 95% CI, −0.63, −0.05; P = 0.02; versus gelatin: SMD, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.20, 0.08; P = 0.39; versus crystalloids: SMD, −0.05; 95% CI, −0.20, 0.10; P = 0.54). Similar results were found for transfusion needs. Lengths of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital were significantly shorter with tetrastarches compared to gelatin (intensive care unit: SMD, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.15, −0.05; P = 0.0002) and crystalloids (hospital: SMD, −0.52; 95% CI, −0.90, −0.14; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

In this meta-analysis of RCTs, we could not identify safety issues with tetrastarches compared with other colloid or crystalloid solutions in terms of blood loss, transfusion requirements or hospital length of stay in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The safety data on coagulation with older starches raise some issues that need to be addressed in future trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0656-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of the colloids gelatin and HES 130/0.4 on blood coagulation in cardiac surgery patients: a randomized controlled trial

Objective:

The choice of the prime solution for cardiopulmonary bypass can play an important role in limiting the effect on blood coagulation, but it is still unclear what the effect of colloids on blood coagulation is. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of synthetic colloids on blood loss and blood coagulation in patients after on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures.

Methods:

Sixty elective, on-pump CABG patients were randomly assigned to receive the prime solutions lactated Ringer’s solution combined with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (HES, 6% Volulyte, Fresenius Kabi Nederland BV, Zeist, the Netherlands) (HES group) or gelatin (Gelofusin®, B Braun Melsung AG, Melsungen, Germany) (Gelo group). Blood loss was assessed using post-operative chest tube output; secondary endpoints were number of blood component transfusions, routine coagulation test values and rotation thromboelastometry values (Rotem® delta, Pentapharm GmbH, Munich, Germany).

Results:

Total post-operative chest tube output was 500 ± 420 ml in the HES group versus 465 ± 390 ml in the Gelo group ( p = 0.48). No significant differences were observed in any of the routine coagulation tests values, thromboelastometry parameters or number of blood component transfusions between the groups.

Conclusions:

In this randomized, controlled trial of adults after on-pump CABG procedures, there was no significant difference in blood loss or blood coagulation between the HES group and the Gelo group.

Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Colloids are widely used in the replacement of fluid volume. However, doubts remain as to which colloid is best. Different colloids vary in their molecular weight and therefore in the length of time they remain in the circulatory system. Because of this, and their other characteristics, they may differ in their safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different colloid solutions in patients thought to need volume replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Specialised Register (searched 1 December 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2011, issue 4 (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1948 to November Week 3 2011); EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to 2011 Week 47); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 1 December 2011); ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to 1 December 2011); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to 1 December 2011); National Research Register (2007, Issue 1) and PubMed (searched 1 December 2011). Bibliographies of trials retrieved were searched, and for the initial version of the review drug companies manufacturing colloids were contacted for information (1999).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing colloid solutions in critically ill and surgical patients thought to need volume replacement.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. The outcomes sought were death, amount of whole blood transfused, and incidence of adverse reactions.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-six trials, with a total of 5,484 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Quality of allocation concealment was judged to be adequate in 33 trials and poor or uncertain in the rest.Deaths were reported in 57 trials. For albumin or plasma protein fraction (PPF) versus hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 31 trials (n = 1719) reported mortality. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.31). When the trials by Boldt were removed from the analysis the pooled RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.20). For albumin or PPF versus gelatin, nine trials (n = 824) reported mortality. The RR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.21). Removing the study by Boldt from the analysis did not change the RR or CIs. For albumin or PPF versus dextran four trials (n = 360) reported mortality. The RR was 3.75 (95% CI 0.42 to 33.09). For gelatin versus HES 22 trials (n = 1612) reported mortality and the RR was 1.02 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.26). When the trials by Boldt were removed from the analysis the pooled RR was 1.03 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.27). RR was not estimable in the gelatin versus dextran and HES versus dextran groups.Forty-one trials recorded the amount of blood transfused; however, quantitative analysis was not possible due to skewness and variable reporting. Twenty-four trials recorded adverse reactions, with two studies reporting possible adverse reactions to gel and one to HES.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From this review, there is no evidence that one colloid solution is more effective or safe than any other, although the CIs were wide and do not exclude clinically significant differences between colloids. Larger trials of fluid therapy are needed if clinically significant differences in mortality are to be detected or excluded.

Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Colloids are widely used in the replacement of fluid volume. However doubts remain as to which colloid is best. Different colloids vary in their molecular weight and therefore in the length of time they remain in the circulatory system. Because of this and their other characteristics, they may differ in their safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different colloid solutions in patients thought to need volume replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Specialised Register (searched 1 Dec 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2011, issue 4 (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1948 to November Week 3 2011); EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to 2011 Week 47); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 1 Dec 2011); ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to 1 Dec 2011); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to 1 Dec 2011); National Research Register (2007, Issue 1) and PubMed (searched 1 Dec 2011). Bibliographies of trials retrieved were searched, and for the initial version of the review drug companies manufacturing colloids were contacted for information (1999).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing colloid solutions in critically ill and surgical patients thought to need volume replacement.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. The outcomes sought were death, amount of whole blood transfused, and incidence of adverse reactions.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety trials, with a total of 5678 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Quality of allocation concealment was judged to be adequate in 35 trials and poor or uncertain in the rest.Deaths were obtained in 61 trials. For albumin or PPF versus hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 32 trials (n = 1769) reported mortality. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.32). When the trials by Boldt were removed from the analysis the pooled RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.20). For albumin or PPF versus gelatin, nine trials (n = 824) reported mortality. The RR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.21). Removing the study by Boldt from the analysis did not change the RR or confidence intervals. For albumin or PPF versus Dextran four trials (n = 360) reported mortality. The RR was 3.75 (95% CI 0.42 to 33.09). For gelatin versus HES 25 trials (n = 1756) reported mortality and the RR was 1.03 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.26). When the trials by Boldt were removed from the analysis the pooled RR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.27). RR was not estimable in the gelatin versus dextran and HES versus dextran groups.Forty five trials recorded the amount of blood transfused, however quantitative analysis was not possible due to skewness and variable reporting. Twenty-four trials recorded adverse reactions, with two studies reporting possible adverse reactions to Gel and one to HES.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

From this review, there is no evidence that one colloid solution is more effective or safe than any other, although the confidence intervals are wide and do not exclude clinically significant differences between colloids. Larger trials of fluid therapy are needed if clinically significant differences in mortality are to be detected or excluded.

Benefits and Risks of Using Gelatin Solution as a Plasma Expander for Perioperative and Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of gelatin solutions compared to other intravenous fluids for patients in perioperative and critical care settings. Of the 66 studies identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, 30 randomised controlled trials involving 2709 patients met the inclusion criteria and were subject to meta-analysis. The risk of mortality (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.32) and amount of blood loss (weighted-mean-difference 7.56 ml, 95% confidence interval 18.75 to 33.87) were not significantly different between patients who were treated with gelatin solutions and other types of intravenous fluids. When compared to starches, gelatin solutions were associated with a lower risk of acute renal failure (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.92; P=0.03). When gelatin solutions were compared to isotonic albumin, patients who were treated with gelatin solutions required a small, but significantly greater amount of blood transfusion (weighted-mean-difference 180 ml, 95% confidence interval 8.1 to 353.6; P=0.04). These findings suggest that using gelatin solutions is associated with a lower risk of acute renal failure compared to older starches. Using gelatin as a plasma expander appears to have no significant advantages over crystalloids or isotonic albumin on mortality and may have a slightly higher risk of requiring allogeneic blood transfusion in perioperative and critically ill patients. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial with economic analysis is needed before gelatin solution can be recommended as a routine plasma expander for patients undergoing major surgery or who are critically ill.