Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23925465›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2013

[Limited applications for hydroxyethyl starch : background and alternative concepts].

M Rehm

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. [Diagnosis and therapy of an acute abdomen].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014
    Review
  7. Article
  8. [Acute kidney injury in the perioperative setting].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. [Hydroxyethyl starch].Der Anaesthesist · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

M RehmKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, Klinikum der Universität München (LMU), Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. markus.rehm@med.uni-muenchen.de
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin the framework of a risk assessment procedure the Committee for Risk Assessment of Pharmacovigilance (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) came to the conclusion that the benefits of hydroxylethyl starch infusion solutions (HES) no longer outweighed the risks and on 14 June 2013 recommended that approval should be suspended. Until the procedure has finally been concluded, which could last several months, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Products (BfArM) has recommended that HES should not be used.

aimThe aim of this article is to present the data situation in the most objective and compact way and to ultimately give the reader the foundations in order to be able to form a personal opinion. In addition an attempt will be made to describe a concept how infusion therapy can be carried out without using hydroxyethyl starch (HES). MATERIAL AND

methodsThe background to this decision is given based on a review of the literature and the relevance for intensive care, emergency and perioperative medicine is assessed. Furthermore, a concept of infusion therapy without hydroxyethyl starch is formulated also based on the results of current studies.

resultsFor infusion regimens without HES it should be noted that gelatin represents a considerable risk for anaphylactic reactions, that transfer of the new variants of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy BSE) cannot fundamentally be excluded and that some evidence has been found that gelatin can cause kidney injury, probably in a similar way to HES. With respect to the cost-benefit analysis of infusion solutions, blood loss in adults of approximately 1-1.5 l can be substituted by balanced crystalloids (basic therapy 4-5 times compared to the amount of blood lost). For larger blood losses small amounts of hyperoncotic albumin solution (20 %) or alternatively 5 % albumin solution can be used. The 20 % albumin solution seems to have some advantages because it has a higher volume effect (approximately 200 %) and can be more favourable for the fluid balance than 5 % albumin solution. Blood losses greater than 2-3 l normally also require administration of blood products (e.g. fresh frozen plasma FFP and erythrocyte concentrates EC).

conclusionsThe third generation HES solutions cannot be completely replaced by other colloids and in future crystalloids will more strongly again broadly form the basis for infusion therapy. In this aspect balanced crystalloids have priority with respect to the acid-base equilibrium. The history of HES has impressively shown that infusion therapy must be adjusted on a scientifically founded basis, whether in intensive care medicine, perioperative or emergency medicine. Large prospective studies with clinically relevant endpoints are urgently needed.

Indexed as

ContraindicationsCritical CareCrystalloid SolutionsEmergency Medical ServicesEuropeHumansHydroxyethyl Starch DerivativesInfusions, IntravenousIsotonic SolutionsPerioperative CarePharmacovigilancePlasma SubstitutesRisk AssessmentCrystalloid SolutionsHydroxyethyl Starch DerivativesIsotonic SolutionsPlasma Substitutes

Identifiers

PMID23925465
OpenAlexW3196878544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.