Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32819296›Full record

ReviewBMC anesthesiology2020

Hydroxyethyl starch for perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy in 2020: a narrative review.

Alexandre Joosten, Sean Coeckelenbergh, Brenton Alexander, Amélie Delaporte, Maxime Cannesson, Jacques Duranteau, Bernd Saugel, Jean-Louis Vincent, Philippe Van der Linden

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC anesthesiology, 2020. 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
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Comparison of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4World journal of cardiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Pediatric perioperative fluid management.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Protective Effect of Targeted Fluid Therapy on Patients with One-Lung Ventilation.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Alexandre JoostenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. Alexandre.Joosten@erasme.ulb.ac.be.ORCID 0000-0002-5214-4589
Sean CoeckelenberghDepartment of Anesthesiology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Brenton AlexanderDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Care, University of California San Diego, San Diego, USA.
Amélie DelaporteDepartment of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, Marie Lannelongue Hospital, Paris, France.
Maxime CannessonDepartment of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.
Jacques DuranteauDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Hôpital De Bicêtre, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Bernd SaugelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jean-Louis VincentDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Philippe Van der LindenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Brugmann Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BEUniversité Paris-Sud · FRHôpital Marie Lannelongue · FRUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerioperative fluid management - including the type, dose, and timing of administration -directly affects patient outcome after major surgery. The objective of fluid administration is to optimize intravascular fluid status to maintain adequate tissue perfusion. There is continuing controversy around the perioperative use of crystalloid versus colloid fluids. Unfortunately, the importance of fluid volume, which significantly influences the benefit-to-risk ratio of each chosen solution, has often been overlooked in this debate. MAIN TEXT: The volume of fluid administered during the perioperative period can influence the incidence and severity of postoperative complications. Regrettably, there is still huge variability in fluid administration practices, both intra-and inter-individual, among clinicians. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), aimed at optimizing flow-related variables, has been demonstrated to have some clinical benefit and has been recommended by multiple professional societies. However, this approach has failed to achieve widespread adoption. A closed-loop fluid administration system designed to assist anesthesia providers in consistently applying GDFT strategies has recently been developed and tested. Such an approach may change the crystalloid versus colloid debate. Because colloid solutions have a more profound effect on intravascular volume and longer plasma persistence, their use in this more "controlled" context could be associated with a lower fluid balance, and potentially improved patient outcome. Additionally, most studies that have assessed the impact of a GDFT strategy on the outcome of high-risk surgical patients have used hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions in their protocols. Some of these studies have demonstrated beneficial effects, while none of them has reported severe complications.

conclusionsThe type and volume of fluid used for perioperative management need to be individualized according to the patient's hemodynamic status and clinical condition. The amount of fluid given should be guided by well-defined physiologic targets. Compliance with a predefined hemodynamic protocol may be optimized by using a computerized system. The type of fluid should also be individualized, as should any drug therapy, with careful consideration of timing and dose. It is our perspective that HES solutions remain a valid option for fluid therapy in the perioperative context because of their effects on blood volume and their reasonable benefit/risk profile.

Indexed as

Patient Care PlanningBlood VolumeFluid TherapyHemodynamicsHumansHydroxyethyl Starch DerivativesPerioperative CarePlasma SubstitutesHydroxyethyl Starch DerivativesPlasma SubstitutesAcute renal failureBalanced crystalloidsColloidFluid responsivenessHemodynamic monitoringOutcome

Identifiers

PMID32819296
PMCPMC7441629
OpenAlexW3051155567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.