Objective
To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-lbjfg8yybt.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

A b s t r ac t Background The role of intensive insulin therapy in patients with severe sepsis is uncertain. Fluid resuscitation improves survival among patients with septic shock, but evidence is lacking to support the choice of either crystalloids or colloids. Methods In a multicenter, two-by-two factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to receive either intensive insulin therapy to maintain euglycemia or conventional insulin therapy and either 10% pentastarch, a low-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES 200/0.5), or modified Ringer’s lactate for fluid resuscitation. The rate of death at 28 days and the mean score for organ failure were coprimary end points. Results The trial was stopped early for safety reasons. Among 537 patients who could be evaluated, the mean morning blood glucose level was lower in the intensive-therapy group (112 mg per deciliter [6.2 mmol per liter]) than in the conventional-therapy group (151 mg per deciliter [8.4 mmol per liter], P<0.001). However, at 28 days, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of death or the mean score for organ failure. The rate of severe hypoglycemia (glucose level, ≤40 mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter]) was higher in the intensive-therapy group than in the conventional-therapy group (17.0% vs. 4.1%, P<0.001), as was the rate of serious adverse events (10.9% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.01). HES therapy was associated with higher rates of acute renal failure and renal-replacement therapy than was Ringer’s lactate. Conclusions The use of intensive insulin therapy placed critically ill patients with sepsis at increased risk for serious adverse events related to hypoglycemia. As used in this study, HES was harmful, and its toxicity increased with accumulating doses. (ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT00135473.)

/pdf/intensive-insulin-therapy-and-pentastarch-resuscitation-in-386eht3k3e.pdf

Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis.

Objective:To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” published in 2004.Design:Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, s

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1ovskq8fjd.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

A B S T R AC T Background Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is widely used for fluid resuscitation in intensive care units (ICUs), but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis. Methods In this multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to fluid resuscitation in the ICU with either 6% HES 130/0.42 (Tetraspan) or Ringer’s acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day. The primary outcome measure was either death or end-stage kidney failure (dependence on dialysis) at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modi fied intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer’s acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.36; P = 0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 were treated with renal-replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer’s acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P = 0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P = 0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline. CONCLUSIONS Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal-replacement therapy, as compared with those receiving Ringer’s acetate. (Funded by the Danish Research Council and others; 6S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00962156.)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1204242

Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's Acetate in Severe Sepsis

With the development of a new generation of hydroxyethyl starches (HES), there has been renewed interest in their clinical potential. High doses of first- and second-generation HES were associated with adverse effects on renal function, coagulation, and tissue storage, thereby limiting their clinical applicability. Newer HES products have lower molar substitution and in vivo molecular weight, resulting in more rapid metabolism and clearance. In this review article, the differences between HES generations are highlighted, with particular emphasis on the improved safety profile of the third generation products. These improvements have been achieved with no loss of efficacy, and they contradict the assumption that efficacy of HES solutions is directly linked to plasma concentration. The impact of source material on structure and pharmacokinetics is highlighted, and the role of the carrier solution is critically assessed.

Hydroxyethyl starches: different products--different effects.

BACKGROUND: The influence of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions on renal function is controversial. We investigated the effect of HES administration on renal function in critically ill patients enrolled in a large multicentre observational European study. METHODS: All adult patients admitted to the 198 participating intensive care units (ICUs) during a 15-day period were enrolled. Prospectively collected data included daily fluid administration, urine output, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, serum creatinine levels, and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) during the ICU stay. RESULTS: Of 3147 patients, 1075 (34%) received HES. Patients who received HES were older [mean (SD): 62 (SD 17) vs 60 (18) years, P = 0.022], more likely to be surgical admissions, had a higher incidence of haematological malignancy and heart failure, higher SAPS II [40.0 (17.0) vs 34.7 (16.9), P 1 (P < 0.01 for renal SOFA 2, 3, and 4 with renal SOFA = 0 as a reference) were all associated with a higher need for RRT. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, haematological cancer, the presence of sepsis, cardiovascular failure, and baseline renal function as assessed by the SOFA score were independent risk factors for the subsequent need for RRT in the ICU. The administration of HES had no influence on renal function or the need for RRT in the ICU.

Edward Zavala

Papers

Effects of hydroxyethyl starch administration on renal function in critically ill patients