4.8 Article

Effects of hydroxyethylstarch and gelatin on renal function in severe sepsis: a multicentre randomised study

Journal

LANCET
Volume 357, Issue 9260, Pages 911-916

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04211-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Hydroxyethylstarch used for volume restoration in brain-dead kidney donors has been associated with impaired kidney function in the transplant recipients. We undertook a multicentre randomised study to assess the frequency of acute renal failure (ARF) in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock treated with hydroxyethylstarch or gelatin. Methods Adults with severe sepsis or septic shock were enrolled prospectively in three intensive-care units in France. They were randomly assigned 6% hydroxyethylstarch (200 kDa, 0.60-0.66 substitution) or 3% fluid-modified gelatin. The primary endpoint was ARF (a two-fold increase in serum creatinine from baseline or need for renal replacement therapy). Analyses were by intention to treat. Findings 129 patients were enrolled over 18 months. Severity of illness and serum creatinine (median 143 [IQR 88-203] vs 114 [91-175] mu mol/L) were similar at baseline in the hydroxyethylstarch and gelatin groups. The frequencies of ARF (27/65 [42%] vs 15/64 [23%], p=0.028) and oliguria (35/62 [56%] vs 23/63 [37%], p=0.025) and the peak serum creatinine concentration (225 [130-339] vs 169 [106-273] mu mol/L, p=0.04) were significantly higher in the hydroxyethylstarch group than in the gelatin group. in a multivariate analysis, risk factors for acute renal failure included mechanical ventilation (odds ratio 4.02 [95% CI 1.37-11.8], p=0.013) and use of hydroxyethylstarch (2.57 [1.13-5.83], p=0.026). Interpretations The use of this preparation of hydroxyethylstarch as a plasma-volume expander is an independent risk factor for ARF in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available