These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Influence of Two Colloidal Extracorporeal Primes on Coagulation of Cardiac Surgical Patients: A Prospectively Randomized Open-Label Pilot Trial.
    Author: Bethlehem I, Wierda K, Visser C, Jekel L, Koopmans M, Kuiper MA.
    Journal: J Extra Corpor Technol; 2014 Dec; 46(4):293-9. PubMed ID: 26357798.
    Abstract:
    The search for the ideal priming fluid continues as more evidence is discovered about side effects of volume expanders. With the availability of modern, balanced hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions with less side effects than former HES solutions, we considered to replace our gelatin- (modified gelatin) based extracorporeal circuit prime for a HES (130/.42) prime. Therefore, we studied the influence of two colloidal priming fluids on postoperative coagulation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary endpoint was to compare clot formation time between the HES group and the gelatin group with rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM). Additionally we compared colloid osmotic pressure and fluid balance of both groups. Forty patients, undergoing elective first time coronary artery bypass grafting or single-valve surgery, were included in this prospectively randomized open-label pilot study. Laboratory data and ROTEM data were collected and analyzed for differences between the two groups. ROTEM data show significantly more prolongation in Extem clot formation time and significant more decrease in Extem alpha in the HES group. Fibtem maximum clot firmness was significantly smaller in the HES group; this was consistent with fibrinogen concentration measurement, which decreased more in the HES group than in the gelatin group and recovered more over time in the gelatin group. We found no significant difference in colloid. osmotic pressure between the groups. In this trial, HES (130/.42) impairs coagulation significantly more compared with gelatin. These differences in influence on coagulation did not lead to a difference in blood loss or fluid balance, so clinical relevance could not be proven.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]