Volume 7 Supplement 2

23rd International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Open Access

Blood substitutes consumption and coagulation changes: 200/0.5 vs 130/0.4 hydroxyethyl starch administration

  • MG Costa1,
  • L Pompei1,
  • C Coccia1 and
  • G Della Rocca1
Critical Care20037(Suppl 2):P109

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc1998

Published: 3 March 2003

Introduction

The aim of the study was to evaluate blood substitutes consumption and coagulation profile differences in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) receiving volume replacement with 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES 200/0.5) or with a low-molecular weight (LMW) HES (130/0.4) [1].

Methods

Thirty-five consecutive patients scheduled for LT were prospectively randomized to receive either 6% HES (group HES; n = 20) or LMW (group LMW; n = 15) for additional volume replacement. Normal saline at 10 ml/kg per hour was continuously infused in all patients. Conventional global coagulation tests, hemoglobin, hematocrit and platelet values were monitored at the start of surgery (T0), during the anhepatic phase (T1), and at the end of surgery (T2). All data yielded were compared and analyzed with the paired Student t test: P < 0.05 was considered significant (SPSS, PC plus).

Results

No differences in coagulation profile was observed between groups. Fluid and blood substitutes consumption are reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Fluid

Group HES (n = 20)

Group LMW (n = 15)

Cystalloids (ml/kg per hour)

6804 (2000), 3700–12350

8114 (2696), 3720–12015

HES 6% (ml)

897 (443), 500–2000

 

LMW Voluven (ml)

 

750 (250), 500–1000

FFP (U)

9.3 (3.2), 3–15

7.6 (2.1), 3–10

RBC (U)

3.4 (2.9), 1–12

3.8 (2.9), 1–7

HA (U) [1 U = 50 ml]

6.5 (3.1), 0–12

5.7 (3.2), 0–12

PLT (U)

-

-

Intraop cell saver (ml)

500(179), 130–890

777 (303), 500–1200

Urine output (ml/kg per hour)

6.1 (2.9), 2.0–9.5

5.0 (2.7), 1.6–8.6

Data presented as mean (SD), range.

Conclusion

We observed the same coagulation profile and minor blood components consumption using either HES or LMW, and they can be both safely used in liver transplant patients.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Clinica di Anestesia, University of Udine

References

  1. Bennett-Guerrero E, et al.: Arch Surg 2001, 136: 1177-1183. 10.1001/archsurg.136.10.1177View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2003

Advertisement