- Poster presentation
- Open access
- Published:
Efficacy and safety of 10% HES 130/0.4 versus 10% HES 200/0.5 for plasma volume expansion in cardiac surgery patients
Critical Care volume 15, Article number: P87 (2011)
Introduction
Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are commonly used for perioperative volume replacement. Whereas older HES specimens tended to accumulate in the plasma and to cause negative effects on haemostasis, more recent products (for example, HES 130/0.4) are characterised by improved pharmacological properties. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of 10% HES 130/0.4 and 10% HES 200/0.5.
Methods
In this post-hoc analysis of a prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicenter therapeutic equivalence trial, 76 patients undergoing elective on-pump cardiac surgery received perioperative volume replacement using either 10% HES 130/0.4 (n = 37) or 10% HES 200/0.5 (n = 39) up to a maximum dose of 20 ml/kg.
Results
Equivalent volumes of investigational medications were infused until 24 hours after the first administration (1,577 vs. 1,540 ml; treatment difference 37 [-150; 223] ml; P < 0.0001 for equivalence). Whereas standard laboratory tests of coagulation were comparable between groups, von Willebrand factor activity on the first postoperative morning tended to be higher following treatment with 10% HES 130/0.4 as compared with 10% HES 200/0.5 (P = 0.025), with this difference being statistically significant in the per-protocol analysis (P = 0.02). Treatment groups were comparable concerning other safety parameters and the incidence of adverse drug reactions. In particular, renal function was well preserved in both groups.
Conclusions
10% HES 130/0.4 was equally effective and safe as compared with 10% HES 200/0.5 for volume therapy in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Postoperative coagulation and renal function, as measured by standard laboratory tests, were similar among groups.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Ertmer, C., Van Aken, H., Wulf, H. et al. Efficacy and safety of 10% HES 130/0.4 versus 10% HES 200/0.5 for plasma volume expansion in cardiac surgery patients. Crit Care 15 (Suppl 1), P87 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9507
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc9507