This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Boks, R. H Articles by Bogers, A. J J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Boks, R. H Articles by Bogers, A. J J Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Medline Plus Health Information Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Low molecular starch versus gelatin plasma expander during CPB: does it make a difference?

Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Division Extra-Corporeal Circulation, rhboks{at}planet.nl

Marianne J Wijers

Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Division Extra-Corporeal Circulation

Jan Hofland

Department of Anesthesiology. Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Johanna J M Takkenberg

Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Ad J J Bogers

Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Background: Non-protein plasma expanders carry a risk of potentially severe allergic reactions. As prime for cardiopulmonary bypass, we routinely use a gelatin plasma expander. Plasma expanding during anesthesia is achieved with high molecular starch (200/0.5 kDalton) in combination with Ringer Lactate solution (RL) and in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with a low molecular starch (130/0.4 kDalton). We evaluated the feasibility of low molecular starch in combination with RL (group LMSRL) versus gelatin plasma expanding (group GPE) for priming CPB circuits in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in a randomized prospective trial. Methods: One hundred and eighty adults who underwent primary valve or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were equally stratified into 3 series of 60 patients with the routinely used oxygenators; Capiox RX-25, CML Duo and Quadrox-D. Then they were randomised by drawing lots and allocated into the LMSRL or GPE groups. We compared hematocrit, hemoglobin, platelet count, activated clotting time (ACT), lactate and colloid osmotic pressure (COP), blood loss, transfusion need, urine production and ICU stay. In addition, we monitored the average trans-oxygenator fluid resistance (AFR) for each type of oxygenator. Results: The COP is significantly lower in the LMSRL group (20 mmHg ± 0.2 versus 18 mmHg ± 0.2, p < 0.0001); as was the total use of plasma expanders (3846ml ± 98 versus 3059ml ± 77, p < 0.001). All other parameters were not significantly different. When comparing the observed AFR for the three types of oxygenators, a lower AFR in the LMSRL group (p < 0.02) was noted for the Capiox RX-25^®. Conclusions: This study shows a lower need for plasma expanders in patients who receive only starch plasma expanders. Further, we noted a lower COP in the LMSRL group, but since the mean COP was >17 ± 0.2 mmHg, this cannot be considered of clinical importance. In conclusion, our study result supports the use of low molecular starch as a good alternative choice for priming CPB. Perfusion (2007) 22, 333—337.

Perfusion, Vol. 22, No. 5, 333-337 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0267659107086656


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?