Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

6% 130/0.4 versus 6% 200/0.5 hydroxyethyl starch: effects on plasma volume and capillary leakage in a porcine model of septic shock

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 2 and
  • 1
Critical Care20048 (Suppl 1) :P131

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc2598

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Plasma Volume
  • Hydroxyethyl Starch
  • Capillary Leakage Syndrome
  • Control Laboratory Study
  • Weight Faeces

Objectives

Septic shock is characterised by loss of intravascular fluid due to capillary leakage syndrome (CLS) [1]. We have recently reported that the administration of 200/0.5 hydroxyethyl starch (HES) stabilised the plasma volume (PV) in a porcine septic shock/CLS model, suggesting the intravascular persistence of artificial colloids despite CLS [2]. In the present study we compared the effects of 6% HES 130/0.4 and 6% HES 200/0.5 on PV and CLS in porcine septic shock.

Methods

In a prospective randomized, controlled laboratory study, 14 fasted, anaesthetised, mechanically ventilated animals (22.9 ± 2.8 kg) received 0.75 g/kg body weight faeces into the abdominal cavity to induce sepsis and were observed over 6 hours. Animals were randomised to volume replacement therapy with 6% HES 130/0.4 (n = 5), 6% HES 200/0.5 (n = 5), and compared with a nonseptic control group receiving 6% HES 130/0.4 (n = 4). The infusion rate was titrated to maintain a central venous pressure of 12 mmHg. PV was determined using chromium-51-tagged erythrocytes and standard formulae. The albumin escape rate (AER) was calculated using iodine 125-labelled albumin. The cumulative fluid balance (CFB), systemic haemodynamics and oxygenation were measured until 6 hours after induction of sepsis. Statistical comparison was performed using the Wilks Lambda test and the Ryan–Einot–Gabriel–Welsh F test.

Conclusion

In our porcine septic shock model, both 6% HES 130/0.4 and 6% HES 200/05 stabilised PV. Additionally, in comparison with 6% HES 200/05, 6% HES 130/0.4 significantly reduced capillary leakage.
Table 1

Table

Parameter

6% HES 130/0.4

6% HES 200/0.5

Control

PV: 51Cr (ml/kg)

   

   Preshock

59.1 ± 6.3

59.5 ± 7.2

60.6 ± 2.1

   6 hours

58.3 ± 9.0

51.0 ± 7.7

69.4 ± 4.6

   AER (%), 6 hours

37.5 ± 4.9*

44.5 ± 2.8*,#

0.0 ± 4.9

   CFB (ml/kg), 6 hours

82 ± 19*

96 ± 4*

23 ± 4

*P < 0.05 vs control; #P < 0.05 HES 130/0.4 vs HES 200/0.5.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a grant of B. Braun Melsungen.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
University of Liverpool, UK
(2)
Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK

References

  1. Marx G: Eur J Anaesthesiol 2003, 20: 429-442.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Marx G, et al.: Intensive Care Med 2002, 28: 629-635. 10.1007/s00134-002-1260-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd. 2004

Advertisement