Different effects of fluid loading with saline, gelatine, hydroxyethyl starch or albumin solutions on acid-base status in the critically ill

Effects of rapid fluid infusion on hemoglobin concentration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Rapid fluid administration may decrease hemoglobin concentration (Hb) by a diluting effect, which could limit the increase in oxygen delivery (DO₂) expected with a positive response to fluid challenge in critically ill patients. Our aim was to quantify the decrease in Hb after rapid fluid administration.

Methods

Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020165146). We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database, and Embase from inception until February 15, 2022. We selected studies that reported Hb before and after rapid fluid administration (bolus fluid given over less than 120 min) with crystalloids and/or colloids in adults. Exclusion criteria were studies that included bleeding patients, or used transfusions or extracorporeal circulation procedures. Studies were divided according to whether they involved non-acutely ill or acutely ill (surgical/trauma, sepsis, circulatory shock or severe hypovolemia, and mixed conditions) subjects. The mean Hb difference and, where reported, the DO₂ difference before and after fluid administration were extracted. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess differences in Hb before and after rapid fluid administration in all subjects and across subgroups. Random-effect models, meta-regressions and subgroup analyses were performed for meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I² statistic.

Results

Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria (40 in non-acutely ill and 25 in acutely ill subjects), with a total of 2794 participants. Risk of bias was assessed as “low” for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ‘low to moderate’ for non-RCTs. Across 63 studies suitable for meta-analysis, the Hb decreased significantly by a mean of 1.33 g/dL [95% CI − 1.45 to − 1.12; p < 0.001; I² = 96.88] after fluid administration: in non-acutely ill subjects, the mean decrease was 1.56 g/dL [95% CI − 1.69 to − 1.42; p < 0.001; I² = 96.71] and in acutely ill patients 0.84 g/dL [95% CI − 1.03 to − 0.64; p = 0.033; I² = 92.91]. The decrease in Hb was less marked in patients with sepsis than in other acutely ill patients. The DO₂ decreased significantly in fluid non-responders with a significant decrease in Hb.

Conclusions

Hb decreased consistently after rapid fluid administration with moderate certainty of evidence. This effect may limit the positive effects of fluid challenges on DO₂ and thus on tissue oxygenation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04191-x.

Glutaraldehyde-Polymerized Hemoglobin: In Search of Improved Performance as Oxygen Carrier in Hemorrhage Models

Hemoglobin- (Hb-) based oxygen carriers (HBOC) have for several decades been explored for treatment of hemorrhage. In our previous top-up tests, HBOC with lower in vitro prooxidant reactivity (incorporating a peroxidase or serum albumin to this end) showed a measurable but small improvement of oxidative stress-related parameters. Here, such HBOCs are tested in a hemorrhage set-up; ovine hemoglobin is also tested for the first time in such a setting, based on in vitro data showing its improved performance versus bovine Hb against oxidative and nitrosative stress agents. Indeed, ovine Hb performs better than bovine Hb in terms of survival rates, arterial tension, immunology, and histology. On the other hand, unlike in the top-up models, where the nonheme peroxidase rubrerythrin as well as bovine serum albumin copolymerized with Hb were shown to improve the performance of HBOC, in the present hemorrhage models rubrerythrin fails dramatically as HBOC ingredient (with a distinct immunological reaction), whereas serum albumin appears not feasible if its source is a different species (i.e., bovine serum albumin fares distinctly worse than rat serum albumin, in HBOC transfusions in rats). An effect of the matrix in which the HBOCs are dissolved (PBS versus gelofusine versus plasma) is noted.

Effect of hydroxyethyl starch on acidosis in patients with aluminum phosphide poisoning

Background

Given the fact that various studies have reported the positive effects of hydroxyethyl starch therapy in controlling shock, this study aimed to compare the effects of hydroxyethyl starch on modifying acidosis and treating patients with aluminum phosphide poisoning.

Methods

This was a randomized clinical trial that was conducted on 60 patients with aluminum phosphide poisoning. We compared the two groups of patients treated with hydroxyethyl starch and normal saline. Base excess and serum pH of arterial blood gases (ABG) were measured before and after the treatment and compared by t-test.

Results

Results showed that arterial pH in the starch group and normal saline group increased by 0.13 and 0.18, respectively, and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. The difference in the base excess before and after treatment in the starch group and normal saline group was 6.41 and 5.39, respectively, and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Changes in mean values of arterial pH after the intervention in comparison with before treatment were statistically significant (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Overall, the results of the present study show that starch is at least as effective as normal saline in treating acidosis in patients poisoned with aluminum phosphide and can be used instead of normal saline, and both of the two treatments could be equally effective.

Balanced Crystalloids Versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: The optimal resuscitative fluid remains controversial. Objective: To assess the association between crystalloid fluid and outcomes in critically ill adults. Methods: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched from inception through July 2019. Cohort studies and randomized trials of critically ill adults provided predominantly nonperioperative fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids or 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) were included. Results: Thirteen studies (n = 30 950) were included. Balanced crystalloids demonstrated lower hospital or 28-/30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.75-0.99; I2 = 82%) overall, in observational studies (RR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.41-0.99; I2 = 63%), and approached significance in randomized trials (RR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.88-1.02; I2 = 0%). New acute kidney injury occurred less frequently with balanced crystalloids (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.85-0.98; I2 = 0%), though progression to renal replacement therapy was similar (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.79-1.04; I2 = 38%). In the sepsis cohort, odds of hospital or 28-/30-day mortality were similar, but the odds of major adverse kidney events occurring in the first 30 days were less with balanced crystalloids than saline (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.66-0.91; I2 = 42%). Conclusion and Relevance: Resuscitation with balanced crystalloids demonstrated lower hospital or 28-/30-day mortality compared with saline in critically ill adults but not specifically those with sepsis. Balanced crystalloids should be provided preferentially to saline in most critically ill adult patients.

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.

Acid/base alterations during major abdominal surgery: 6% hydroxyethyl starch infusion versus 5% albumin

BACKGROUND

To compare the effects of intraoperative infusions of balanced electrolyte solution (BES)-based hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and saline-based albumin on metabolic acidosis and acid/base changes during major abdominal surgery conducted using Stewart's approach.

METHODS

Forty patients, aged 20-65 years, undergoing major abdominal surgery, were randomly assigned to the HES group (n = 20; received 500 ml of BES-based 6% HES 130/0.4) or the albumin group (n = 20; received 500 ml of normal saline-based 5% albumin). Acid-base parameters were measured and calculated using results obtained from arterial blood samples taken after anesthesia induction (T1), 2 hours after surgery commencement (T2), immediately after surgery (T3), and 1 hour after arriving at a postanesthetic care unit (T4).

RESULTS

Arterial pH in the HES group was significantly higher than that in the albumin group at T3 (7.40 ± 0.04 vs. 7.38 ± 0.04, P = 0.043), and pH values exhibited significant intergroup difference over time (P = 0.002). Arterial pH was significantly lower at T3 and T4 in the HES group and at T2, T3, and T4 in the albumin group than at T1. Apparent strong ion difference (SIDa) was significantly lower at T2, T3, and T4 than at T1 in both groups. Total plasma weak nonvolatile acid (ATOT) was significantly lower in the HES group than in the albumin group at T2, T3 and T4 and exhibited a significant intergroup difference over time (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

BES-based 6% HES infusion was associated with lower arterial pH values at the end of surgery than saline-based 5% albumin infusion, but neither colloid caused clinically significant metabolic acidosis (defined as an arterial pH < 7.35).

Does Fluid Type and Amount Affect Kidney Function in Critical Illness?

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common, although commonly used clinical diagnostic markers are imperfect. Intravenous fluid administration remains a cornerstone of therapy worldwide, but there is minimal evidence of efficacy for the use of fluid bolus therapy outside of specific circumstances, and emerging evidence associates fluid accumulation with worse renal outcomes and even increased mortality among critically ill patients. Artificial colloid solutions have been associated with harm, and chloride-rich solutions may adversely affect renal function. Large trials to provide guidance regarding the optimal fluid choices to prevent or ameliorate AKI, and promote renal recovery, are urgently required.