Advertisement

Do Intensivists Need to Care About the Revised Starling Principle?

  • R. G. HahnEmail author
Chapter
  • 80 Downloads
Part of the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine book series (AUICEM)

Abstract

The revised Starling and glycocalyx principles of transvascular fluid exchange are widely advocated as new paradigms for prescribing intravenous fluid therapy. Clinicians are concerned about whether their current standard approaches for fluid administration require revision due to the new considerations, although several of them can be questioned based on observations in humans. Glycocalyx degradation has been difficult to demonstrate in hypervolemic and normovolemic surgical patients, suggesting that a more severe physiological insult than previously believed is needed to cause acute glycocalyx injury. Three- to fourfold elevations in the plasma concentrations of syndecan-1 and heparan sulfate may even be explained by changes in kidney function. Impaired intravascular persistence of infusion fluids due to glycocalyx degradation has not yet been demonstrated in humans. The so-called non-absorption rule, which holds that hyperoncotic fluid cannot be used to recruit fluid from the interstitium, is poorly supported by studies involving 20% albumin, 7.5% saline, 7.5% saline in 6% dextran 70, and cardiopulmonary bypass. The traditional Starling principle fits studies of hypovolemia much better than the revised Starling principle does, except when there is arterial hypotension.

Keywords

Microcirculation Starling principle Glycocalyx Fluid therapy Colloid fluid 

References

  1. 1.
    Woodcock TE, Woodcock TM. Revised Starling equation and the glycocalyx model of transvascular fluid exchange: an improved paradigm for prescribing intravenous fluid therapy. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:384–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farag E, Kurz A. Perioperative fluid management. Cham: Springer; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kolsen-Petersen JA. The endothelial glycocalyx: the great luminal barrier. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2015;59:137–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hahn RG, Hasselgren E, Björne H, Zdolsek M, Zdolsek J. Biomarkers of endothelial injury in plasma are dependent on kidney function. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;72:161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li Y, Yi S, Zhu Y, Hahn RG. Volume kinetics of Ringer’s lactate in acute inflammatory disease. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121:574–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nemme J, Hahn RG, Krizhanovskii C, Ntika S, Sabelnikovs O, Vanags I. Minimal shedding of the glycocalyx layer during abdominal hysterectomy. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17:107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Statkevicus S, Bonnevier J, Fisher J, et al. Albumin infusion rate and plasma volume expansion: a randomized clinical trial in postoperative patients after major surgery. Crit Care. 2019;23:191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hasselgren E, Zdolsek M, Zdolsek JH, et al. Long intravascular persistence of albumin 20% in postoperative patients. Anesth Analg. 2019;129:1232–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chappell D, Bruegger D, Potzel J, et al. Hypervolemia increases release of atrial natriuretic peptide and shedding of the endothelial glycocalyx. Crit Care. 2014;18:538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleck A, Raines G, Hawker F, et al. Increased vascular permeability: a major cause of hypoalbuminaemia in disease and injury. Lancet. 1985;325:781–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rehm M, Haller M, Orth V, et al. Changes in blood volume and hematocrit during acute perioperative volume loading with 5% albumin or 6% hetastarch solutions in patients before radical hysterectomy. Anesthesiology. 2001;95:849–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacob M, Chappell D, Rehm M. Clinical update: perioperative fluid management. Lancet. 2007;369:1984–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chappell D, Jacob M, Hofmann-Kiefer K, Conzen P, Rehm M. A rational approach to perioperative fluid management. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:723–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hahn RG. Must hypervolaemia be avoided? A critique of the evidence. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47:94–101.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacob M, Saller T, Chappell D, Rehm M, Welsch U, Becker BF. Physiological levels of A-, B- and C-type natriuretic peptide shed the endothelial glycocalyx and enhance vascular permeability. Basic Res Cardiol. 2013;108:347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guerci P, Ergin B, Uz Z, et al. Glycocalyx degradation is independent of vascular barrier permeability increase in nontraumatic hemorrhagic shock in rats. Anesth Analg. 2019;129:598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zdolsek M, Hahn RG, Zdolsek JH. Recruitment of extravascular fluid by hyperoncotic albumin. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62:1255–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drobin D, Hahn RG. Kinetics of isotonic and hypertonic plasma volume expanders. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:1371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Svensén CH, Rodhe PM, Olsson J, Borsheim E, Aarsland A, Hahn RG. Arteriovenous differences in plasma dilution and the distribution kinetics of lactated Ringer’s solution. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Törnudd M, Hahn RG, Zdolsek JH. Fluid distribution kinetics during cardiopulmonary bypass. Clinics. 2014;69:535–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michel CC, Arkill KP, Curry FE. The revised Starling principle and its relevance to perioperative fluid therapy. In: Farag E, Kurz A, editors. Perioperative fluid management. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 31–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hahn RG, Drobin D, Li Y, Zdolsek J. Kinetics of Ringer’s solution in extracellular dehydration and hemorrhage. Shock. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000001422. [Epub ahead of print]
  23. 23.
    Hahn RG. Haemoglobin dilution from epidural-induced hypotension with and without fluid loading. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1992;36:241–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drobin D, Hahn RG. Time course of increased haemodilution in hypotension induced by extradural anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 1996;77:223–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hahn RG, Lyons G. The half-life of infusion fluids: an educational review. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016;33:475–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ewaldsson C-A, Hahn RG. Kinetics and extravascular retention of acetated Ringer’s solution during isoflurane and propofol anesthesia for thyroid surgery. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:460–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hahn RG. Arterial pressure and the rates of elimination of crystalloid fluid. Anesth Analg. 2017;124:1824–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hahn RG. Why are crystalloid and colloid fluid requirements similar during surgery and intensive care? Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013;30:515–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chappell D, Jacob M. A rational approach to fluid and volume management. In: Cannessson M, Pearse R, editors. Perioperative hemodynamic monitoring and goal directed therapy. From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nilsson A, Randmaa I, Hahn RG. Haemodynamic effects of irrigating fluids studied by Doppler ultrasonography in volunteers. Br J Urol. 1996;77:541–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hahn RG, Stalberg HP, Ekengren J, Rundgren M. Effects of 1.5% glycine solution with and without ethanol on the fluid balance in elderly men. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1991;35:725–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research UnitSödertälje HospitalSödertäljeSweden
  2. 2.Karolinska Institutet at Danderyds Hospital (KIDS)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations