Drugs in R & D

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–9

Volume Efficacy and Reduced Influence on Measures of Coagulation Using Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 (6%) with an Optimised in Vivo Molecular Weight in Orthopaedic Surgery

A Randomised, Double-Blind Study
  • Cornelius Jungheinrich
  • Wilhelm Sauermann
  • Frank Bepperling
  • Norbert H. Vogt
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background and objective: Different types of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) affect blood coagulation differently. We studied the effects of HES 130/0.4 on coagulation in major orthopaedic surgery in relation to the pharmacological parameter in vivo molecular weight.

Methods: 52 patients were randomly allocated to either HES 130/0.4 (6%, mean molecular weight 130 kDa, molar substitution 0.4) or HES 200/0.5 (6%, control) in a double-blind fashion. Colloidal volume requirements for intra- and postoperative haemodynamic stabilisation were compared. Safety analyses of this pharmacological study included a comparison of coagulation factor tests, in vivo molecular weight, and HES plasma concentrations.

Results: The colloidal volumes given were similar at the end of surgery (1602 ± 569 for HES 130/0.4 vs 1635 ± 567mL for HES 200/0.5), 5h later (1958 ± 467 vs 1962 ± 398mL), and up to the first postoperative day (2035 ± 446 vs 2000 ± 424mL). HES in vivo molecular weight at the end of surgery was 88 707 ± 13 938 versus 158 374 ± 33 933Da (p < 0.001) and 5h later was 86 663 ± 16 126 versus 136 299 ± 26 208Da (p < 0.001). In parallel to the lower in vivo molecular weight, factor VIII and von Willebrand factor returned to almost normal in the HES 130/0.4 group up to 5h postoperatively, but not in the control group (p < 0.05). Residual HES plasma concentrations after 24h were low in the HES 130/0.4 group (1.0 mg/mL), but higher in the control group (2.6 mg/mL).

Conclusion: HES 130/0.4 and HES 200/0.5 were found to be similar with regard to volume efficacy. Sensitive coagulation parameters returned more rapidly to normal in the HES 130/0.4 group. Lower in vivo molecular weight and more rapid excretion of HES 130/0.4 are the likely explanations for the smaller influence on coagulation in this group.

References

  1. 1.
    Boldt J, Haisch G, Suttner S, et al. Effects of a new modified, balanced hydroxyethyl starch preparation (Hextend®) on measures of coagulation. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 722–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vogt NH, Bothner U, Lerch G, et al. Large-dose administration of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 200/0.5 in total hip arthroplasty: plasma homeostasis, hemostasis, and renal function compared to use of 5% human albumin. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 262–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stump DC, Strauss RG, Henriksen RA, et al. Effects of hydroxy-ethyl starch on blood coagulation, particularly factor VIII. Transfusion 1985; 25: 349–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jung F, Koscielny J, Mrowietz C, et al. The effect of molecular structure of hydroxyethyl starch on the elimination kinetics and fluidity of blood in human volunteers [in German]. Arzneimittelforschung 1993; 43: 99–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Treib J, Haass A, Pindur G, et al. HES 200/0.5 is not HES 200/0.5: influence of the C2/C6 hydroxyethylation ratio of hyroxy-ethyl starch (HES) on hemorheology, coagulation and elimination kinetics. Thromb Haemost 1995; 74: 1452–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gallandat Huet RC, Siemons AW, Baus D, et al. A novel hydroxyethyl starch (Voluven®) for effective perioperative plasma volume substitution in cardiac surgery. Can J Anesth 2000; 47: 1207–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Langeron O, Doelberg M, Ang ET, et al. Voluven, a lower substituted novel hydroxyethyl starch (HES 130/0.4), causes fewer effects on coagulation in major orthopedic surgery than HES 200/0.5. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 855–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haisch G, Boldt J, Krebs C, et al. The influence of intravascular volume therapy with a new hydroxyethyl starch preparation (6% HES 130/0.4) on coagulation in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 565–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haisch G, Boldt J, Krebs C, et al. Influence of a new hydroxyethyl starch preparation (HES 130/0.4) on coagulation in cardiac surgical patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2001; 15: 316–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lang K, Boldt J, Suttner S, et al. Colloids versus crystalloids and tissue oxygen tension in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 405–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kasper SM, Meinert P, Kampe S, et al. Large-dose hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 does not increase blood loss and transfusion requirements in coronary artery bypass surgery compared with hydroxyethyl starch 200/0.5 at recommended doses. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 42–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellger B, Freyhoff J, van Aken H, et al. High dose volume replacement using HES 130/0.4 during major surgery does not alter coagulation [abstract]. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2002; 19 Suppl. 24: 77Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neff TA, Doelberg M, Jungheinrich C, et al. Repetitive largedose infusion of the novel hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 in patients with severe head injury. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 1453–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waitzinger J, Bepperling F, Pabst G, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of a new hydroxyethyl starch (HES) specification (HES 130/0.4) after single-dose infusion of 6% or 10% solutions in healthy volunteers. Clin Drug Invest 1998; 16: 151–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jungheinrich C, Scharpf R, Wargenau M, et al. The pharmacokinetics and tolerability of an intravenous infusion of the new hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (6%, 500 ml) in mild-to-severe renal impairment. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 544–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mishler JM, Durr GH. Macroamylasemia induced by hydroxyethyl starch: confirmation by gel filtration analysis of serum and urine. Am J Clin Pathol 1980; 74: 387–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waitzinger J, Bepperling F, Pabst G, et al. Effect of a new HES specification (6% HES 130/0.4) on blood and plasma volume after bleeding in 12 healthy male volunteers. Clin Drug Invest 1999; 17: 119–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruttmann TG, James MF, Aronson I. In vivo investigation into the effects of haemodilution with hydroxyethyl starch (200/0.5) and normal saline on coagulation. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 612–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Konrad CJ, Markl TJ, Schuepfer GK, et al. In vitro effects of different medium molecular hydroxyethyl starch solutions and lactated Ringer’s solution on coagulation using SONOCLOT. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 274–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Entholzner EK, Mielke LL, Calatzis AN, et al. Coagulation effects of a recently developed hydroxyethyl starch (HES 130/0.4) compared to hydroxyethyl starches with higher molecular weight. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000; 44: 1116–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Franz A, Bräunlich P, Gamsjäger T, et al. The effects of hydroxyethyl starches of varying molecular weights on platelet function. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 1402–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelius Jungheinrich
    • 1
  • Wilhelm Sauermann
    • 2
  • Frank Bepperling
    • 1
  • Norbert H. Vogt
    • 3
  1. 1.Clinical ResearchBad HomburgGermany
  2. 2.DATAMAP GmbH (Biostatistics Institute)FreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of AnaesthesiologySt Hedwig HospitalBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations