Skip Navigation LinksHome > September 2013 - Volume 119 - Issue 3 > Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 and Postoperative Acute Kidney I...
Anesthesiology:
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31829ff2f4
Correspondence

Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 and Postoperative Acute Kidney Injury

Groeneveld, A. B. Johan M.D., Ph.D., F.C.C.P., F.C.C.M.; Navickis, Roberta J. Ph.D.; Wilkes, Mahlon M. Ph.D.*

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Back to Top | Article Outline

To the Editor:

Martin et al.1 described a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials evaluating renal function in 1,230 total surgical patients allocated to hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 or control fluid. At baseline, mean serum creatinine (SCr) was lower in HES 130/0.4 recipients than the control group, and after surgery, the most extreme mean SCr values were higher in the patients receiving HES 130/0.4. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Limited data on acute renal failure and renal replacement therapy available among the trials included in the meta-analysis also showed no significant differences. The investigators concluded that there was no evidence of adverse postoperative renal effects due to HES 130/0.4.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Image Tools
A major weakness of this meta-analysis was short follow-up. In six of the included trials, renal function was evaluated only for 24 h or less after surgery and in two more trials only up to 48 h. SCr is neither a specific nor a sensitive marker for renal tubular injury, and threshold SCr increase for diagnosis of incipient acute kidney injury (AKI) is not typically observed until 48 h or more after surgery.2 This temporal pattern is nicely demonstrated by the Crystalloid versus Hydroxyethyl Starch Trial of HES 130/0.4, which included 2,876 surgical patients comprising 43% of the overall trial population (fig. 1).3 HES 130/0.4 significantly increased SCr in that trial but the effect was not clearly evident until after 48 h, and the SCr peak was not reached until after 4 days. Thus, in eight trials of the meta-analysis, the SCr peak is likely to have been missed because of short follow-up. In the Crystalloid versus Hydroxyethyl Starch Trial, SCr increase was accompanied by increased recourse to renal replacement therapy in the HES 130/0.4 group with a relative risk of 1.21 and 95% CI of 1.00–1.45 (P = 0.04). These adverse renal effects were encountered despite a low average daily HES 130/0.4 dose (526 ml).
Furthermore, five of the nine trials in the meta-analysis with more than 48 h follow-up compared HES 130/0.4 with other artificial colloids known to cause renal impairment.4 Lack of difference in those trials would if anything suggest deleterious renal effects of HES 130/0.4.
The most extreme mean postoperative SCr value is an endpoint of convenience rather than a validated indicator of AKI in individual patients. In reality, the trials of this meta-analysis were not designed to assess HES 130/0.4-induced AKI. SCr data were often reported simply as part of a laboratory test panel. No included trial assessed AKI in accordance with a validated classification system such as risk of renal dysfunction, injury to the kidney, failure of kidney function, loss of kidney function, and end-stage kidney disease or Acute Kidney Injury Network.2 Only one included trial report even specified any definition for acute renal failure.
Beyond these threats to the validity of the meta-analysis, its applicability to routine clinical practice is limited. In 16 of the 17 included trials, patients with renal dysfunction at baseline were excluded. Hence, it can only be concluded that evidence was not found of adverse renal effects among surgical patients at low risk of AKI.
This meta-analysis is based on two premises that: (1) HES 130/0.4 may pose less renal risk than other HES solutions and (2) surgical patients may be less susceptible to HES-induced AKI than other critically ill patients. Neither premise was supported by a systematic review on the comparative safety of colloids encompassing 69 clinical studies, including 42 randomized trials with 10,382 total patients.4 Martin et al. wrongly suggest that the systematic review was incomplete. In fact, all studies fulfilling prespecified selection criteria were included in the systematic review without exception, as elsewhere detailed.5 Moreover, the systematic review has recently received confirmation from a new meta-analysis showing that HES increases mortality (relative risk, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02–1.17), acute renal failure (relative risk, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09–1.47), and renal replacement therapy (relative risk, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15–1.50).6 The effects of various HES solutions were found to be similar in that meta-analysis, as were the effects of HES in assorted populations of critically ill patients.
Additional evidence also raises concern about the perioperative infusion of HES 130/0.4. In a retrospective study of 6,553 patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, HES 130/0.4 exposure was found to be an independent risk factor for renal replacement therapy (odds ratio, 1.708; P = 0.004).7
The risk of excessive bleeding due to HES 130/0.4 also needs to be considered.4 A meta-analysis of randomized cardiopulmonary bypass surgery trials demonstrated increases in postoperative blood loss and blood product transfusion as well as reoperation for bleeding among patients receiving HES.8 There was no evidence that those risks differed among HES solutions. A systematic review of viscoelastic device studies indicated impairment of coagulation specifically by HES 130/0.4.9
On the basis of available evidence, it has been recommended that clinical use of HES for acute volume resuscitation be avoided because of serious safety concerns.6 Whether there exist specific patient groups who might benefit from HES 130/0.4 would have to be demonstrated in future randomized trials specifically designed and adequately powered to detect differences in renal outcomes. Current data are not adequate to establish the perioperative safety of HES 130/0.4.
Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Martin C, Jacob M, Vicaut E, Guidet B, Van Aken H, Kurz A. Effect of waxy maize-derived hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 on renal function in surgical patients. ANESTHESIOLOGY. 2013;118:387–94

2. McIlroy DR, Wagener G, Lee HT. Biomarkers of acute kidney injury: An evolving domain. ANESTHESIOLOGY. 2010;112:998–4

3. Myburgh JA, Finfer S, Bellomo R, Billot L, Cass A, Gattas D, Glass P, Lipman J, Liu B, McArthur C, McGuinness S, Rajbhandari D, Taylor CB, Webb SACHEST Investigators; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group. . Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1901–11

4. Groeneveld AB, Navickis RJ, Wilkes MM. Update on the comparative safety of colloids: A systematic review of clinical studies. Ann Surg. 2011;253:470–83

5. Groeneveld AB, Navickis RJ, Wilkes MM. Reply to letters: “Safety of colloids: A knowledge issue?,” “Update on the comparative safety of colloids: Was this review really systematic?,” and “Is it already time to update the comparative safety of colloids?”. Ann Surg. 2013;257:e3–4

6. Zarychanski R, Abou-Setta AM, Turgeon AF, Houston BL, McIntyre L, Marshall JC, Fergusson DA. Association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients requiring volume resuscitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013;309:678–88

7. Bayer O, Kohl M, Kabisch B, Sakr Y, Schelenz C, Bauer M, Riedemann N, Badreldin A, Doenst T, Hartog C, Reinhart K. Effects of synthetic colloids on renal function in cardiac surgical ICU patients. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(suppl 1):S202

8. Navickis RJ, Haynes GR, Wilkes MM. Effect of hydroxyethyl starch on bleeding after cardiopulmonary bypass: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144:223–30

9. Hartog CS, Reuter D, Loesche W, Hofmann M, Reinhart K. Influence of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 on hemostasis as measured by viscoelastic device analysis: A systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:1725–37

© 2013 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.
Login

Article Tools

Images

Share