Effect of 6% Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 on Inflammatory Response and Pulmonary Function in Patients Having Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass induces a profound inflammatory response that, when severe, can lead to multiorgan system dysfunction. Preliminary data suggest that administration of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions may mitigate an inflammatory response and improve pulmonary function. Our goal was to examine the effect of 6% HES 130/0.4 versus 5% human albumin given for intravascular plasma volume replacement on the perioperative inflammatory response and pulmonary function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods

This was a subinvestigation of a blinded, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement surgery at the Cleveland Clinic main campus, titled “Effect of 6% Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 on Kidney and Haemostatic Function in Cardiac Surgical Patients.” Of 141 patients who were randomized to receive either 6% HES 130/0.4 or 5% human albumin for intraoperative plasma volume replacement, 135 patients were included in the data analysis (HES n = 66, albumin n = 69). We assessed the cardiopulmonary bypass–induced inflammatory response end points by comparing the 2 groups’ serum concentrations of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), measured at baseline and at 1 and 24 hours after surgery. We also compared the 2 groups’ postoperative pulmonary function end points, including the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao₂:Fio₂ ratio), dynamic lung compliance, oxygenation index (OI), and ventilation index (VI) at baseline, within 1 hour of arrival to the intensive care unit, and before tracheal extubation. The differences in the postoperative levels of inflammatory response and pulmonary function between the HES and albumin groups were assessed individually in linear mixed models.

Results

Serum concentrations of the inflammatory markers (TNF-α, IL-6, MIF) were not significantly different (P ≥ .05) between patients who received 6% HES 130/0.4 or 5% albumin, and there was no significant heterogeneity of the estimated treatment effect over time (P ≥ .15). The results of pulmonary function parameters (Pao₂:Fio₂ ratio, dynamic compliance, OI, VI) were not significantly different (P ≥ .05) between groups, and there was no significant heterogeneity of the estimated treatment effect over time (P ≥ .15).

Conclusions

Our investigation found no significant difference in the concentrations of inflammatory markers and measures of pulmonary function between cardiac surgical patients who received 6% HES 130/0.4 versus 5% albumin.