Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2019 pp 277–292Cite as

Should Albumin be the Colloid of Choice for Fluid Resuscitation in Hypovolemic Patients?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1877 Accesses

Part of the book series: Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine ((AUICEM))

Abstract

Hemodynamic management represents a major therapeutic challenge in critical care and emergency medicine. It plays a key role during the entire healing process of a patient from hospital admission to discharge. Within hemodynamic stabilization, resuscitation is one of the major indications for fluid administration and is often a life-saving therapy that has to be administered as soon as possible, with the right dose and rate, and choosing the right types of fluid. Unfortunately, these pillars of fluid therapy are not supported by consistent and solid evidence in the scientific literature. The agreement on the right fluid for the right patient is a mantra that is still a source of debate. However, after the restriction of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) use in critically ill patients issued by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) and the Food and drug Administration (FDA) in 2013, crystalloids now dominate resuscitation fluids in hypovolemia although recent evidence has demonstrated increased mortality in critically ill patients receiving 0.9% NaCl (normal saline)—by far, one of the most used crystalloids [1].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:829–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vincent JL, De Backer D, Wiedermann CJ. Fluid management in sepsis: the potential beneficial effects of albumin. J Crit Care. 2016;35:161–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fanali G, di Masi A, Trezza V, et al. Human serum albumin: from bench to bedside. Mol Asp Med. 2012;33:209–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kendrick DB. The blood program. 1962. Available at: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/actvsurgconvoli/CH06.htm. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.

  5. Caraceni P, Domenicali M, Tovoli A, et al. Clinical indications for the albumin use: still a controversial issue. Eur J Intern Med. 2013;24:721–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vincent JL, Ince C, Bakker J. Clinical review: circulatory shock—an update: a tribute to Professor Max Harry Weil. Crit Care. 2012;16:239.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ince C. The rationale for microcirculatory guided fluid therapy. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014;20:301–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ince C. Hemodynamic coherence and the rationale for monitoring the microcirculation. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2015;19(Suppl 3):S8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Weil MH. The “VIP” approach to the bedside management of shock. JAMA. 1969;207:337.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Malbrain MLNG, Van Regenmortel N, Saugel B, et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D’s and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dubin A, Pozo MO, Casabella CA, et al. Comparison of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 and saline solution for resuscitation of the microcirculation during the early goal-directed therapy of septic patients. J Crit Care. 2010;25:659.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kremer H, Baron-Menguy C, Tesse A, et al. Human serum albumin improves endothelial dysfunction and survival during experimental endotoxemia: concentration-dependent properties. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:1414–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Damiani E, Ince C, Orlando F, et al. Effects of the infusion of 4% or 20% human serum albumin on the skeletal muscle microcirculation in endotoxemic rats. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0151005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hahn RG. Adverse effects of crystalloid and colloid fluids. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014;49:303–8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:124–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wise J. Boldt: the great pretender. BMJ. 2013;346:f1738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers. Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1998;317:235–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Roberts I, Edwards P, McLelland B, et al. More on albumin. BMJ. 1999;318:1214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilkes MM, Navickis RJ. Patient survival after human albumin administration. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:149–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vincent JL, Wilkes MM, Navickis RJ. Safety of human albumin—serious adverse events reported worldwide in 1998–2000. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:625–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2247–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:125–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Myburgh JA, Finfer S, Bellomo R, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1901–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. James MFM, Michell WL, Joubert IA, et al. Resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch improves renal function and lactate clearance in penetrating trauma in a randomized controlled study: the FIRST trial (Fluids in Resuscitation of Severe Trauma). Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:693–702.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Guidet B, Martinet O, Boulain T, et al. Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 vs. 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis: the CRYSTMAS study. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2012;16:R94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Annane D, Siami S, Jaber S, et al. Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock: the CRISTAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1809–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Can I, Thomas WLS. Even normal saline is harmful if used wrongly, so why did EMA single out hydroxyethyl starch? 2018. Available at: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/05/11/even-normal-saline-is-harmful-if-used-wrongly-so-why-did-ema-single-out-hydroxyethyl-starch/. Accessed 6 June 2018.

  30. Wiedermann CJ, Bellomo R, Perner A. Is the literature inconclusive about the harm from HES? No. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:1523–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Doshi P. EMA recommendation on hydroxyethyl starch solutions obscured controversy. BMJ. 2018;360:k1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hammond NE, Taylor C, Finfer S, et al. Patterns of intravenous fluid resuscitation use in adult intensive care patients between 2007 and 2014: an international cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zwissler B. Open letter to the European Commission: marketing authorization of colloid solutions containing hydroxyethyl starch (HES). 2018. Available at: https://www.dgai.de/aktuelles/464. Accessed 3 Nov 2018.

  34. Angeli P, Bernardi M, Villanueva C, et al. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2018;69:406–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Caraceni P, Riggio O, Angeli P, et al. Long-term albumin administration in decompensated cirrhosis (ANSWER): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;391:2417–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Solà E, Solé C, Simón-Talero M, et al. Midodrine and albumin for prevention of complications of cirrhosis in patients in the waiting list for liver transplantation. A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2017;66:S11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:486–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Roberts I, Blackhall K, Alderson P, et al. Human albumin solution for resuscitation and volume expansion in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011:CD001208.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Laki B, Taghizadeh-Ghehi M, Assarian M, et al. Effect of hospital-wide interventions to optimize albumin use in a tertiary hospital. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;42:704–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Tarin R, Sanchez A, Santos R, et al. Costs related to inappropriate use of albumin in Spain. Ann Pharmacother. 2000;34:1198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dubois M-J, Orellana-Jimenez C, Melot C, et al. Albumin administration improves organ function in critically ill hypoalbuminemic patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled, pilot study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2536–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Caironi P, Tognoni G, Masson S, et al. Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1412–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Frenette AJ, Bouchard J, Bernier P, et al. Albumin administration is associated with acute kidney injury in cardiac surgery: a propensity score analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18:602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taguchi K, Giam Chuang VT, Maruyama T, Otagiri M. Pharmaceutical aspects of the recombinant human serum albumin dimer: structural characteristics, biological properties, and medical applications. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101:3033–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Woodcock J, Griffin J, Behrman R, et al. The FDA’s assessment of follow-on protein products: a historical perspective. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:437–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Che Y, Wilson FJ, Bertolini J, et al. Impact of manufacturing improvements on clinical safety of albumin: Australian pharmacovigilance data for 1988–2005. Crit Care Resusc. 2006;8:334–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lai AT, Zeller MP, Millen T, et al. Chloride and other electrolyte concentrations in commonly available 5% albumin products. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e326–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Bar-Or D, Bar-Or R, Rael LT, et al. Heterogeneity and oxidation status of commercial human albumin preparations in clinical use. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1638–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Plantier J-L, Duretz V, Devos V, et al. Comparison of antioxidant properties of different therapeutic albumin preparations. Biologicals. 2016;44:226–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bar-Or D, Thomas GW, Bar-Or R, et al. Commercial human albumin preparations for clinical use are immunosuppressive in vitro. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1707–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

    J. Montomoli & A. Donati

  2. Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    J. Montomoli & C. Ince

Authors
  1. J. Montomoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Donati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Ince
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Ince .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Jean-Louis Vincent

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Montomoli, J., Donati, A., Ince, C. (2019). Should Albumin be the Colloid of Choice for Fluid Resuscitation in Hypovolemic Patients?. In: Vincent, JL. (eds) Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2019. Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06067-1_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06067-1_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-06066-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-06067-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation