Critical Care Research and Practice

Critical Care Research and Practice / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 2170828 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2170828

Seechad Noonpradej, Osaree Akaraborworn, "Intravenous Fluid of Choice in Major Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review", Critical Care Research and Practice, vol. 2020, Article ID 2170828, 19 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2170828

Intravenous Fluid of Choice in Major Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Academic Editor: Timothy E. Albertson
Received26 Apr 2020
Revised29 May 2020
Accepted30 Jun 2020
Published03 Aug 2020

Abstract

Background. Intravenous fluid therapy plays a role in maintaining the hemodynamic status for tissue perfusion and electrolyte hemostasis during surgery. Recent trials in critically ill patients reported serious side effects of some types of fluids. Since the most suitable type of fluid is debatable, a consensus in perioperative patients has not been reached. Method. We performed a systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared two or more types of fluids in major abdominal surgery. The outcomes were related to bleeding, hemodynamic status, length of hospital stay, and complications, such as kidney injury, electrolyte abnormality, major cardiac adverse event, nausea, vomiting, and mortality. A literature search was performed using Medline and EMBASE up to December 2019. The data were pooled to investigate the effect of fluid on macrocirculation and intravascular volume effect. Results. Forty-three RCTs were included. Eighteen fluids were compared: nine were crystalloids and nine were colloids. The results were categorized into macrocirculation and intravascular volume effect, microcirculation, anti-inflammatory parameters, vascular permeability, renal function (colloids), renal function and electrolytes (crystalloids), coagulation and bleeding, return of bowel function, and postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV). We found that no specific type of fluid led to mortality and every type of colloid was equivalent in volume expansion and did not cause kidney injury. However, hydroxyethyl starch and dextran may lead to increased bleeding. Normal saline can cause kidney injury which can lead to renal replacement therapy, and dextrose fluid can decrease PONV. Conclusion. In our opinion, it is safe to give a balanced crystalloid as the maintenance fluid and give a colloid, such as HES130/0.4, 4% gelatin, or human albumin, as a volume expander.

1. Introduction

Many factors affect the outcome of elective surgery. Beyond the nature of the primary disease and the surgical factors, intravenous fluid therapy and inotropic drugs play a role in maintaining the hemodynamic status for tissue perfusion and electrolyte hemostasis [1, 2].

The first intravenous fluid was invented about 200 years ago and evolved progressively during world wars to replace blood plasma by adding a complex sugar, protein, and colloids. [3] While believing that 0.9% sodium chloride (NaCl) is physiologic [4] and synthetic colloids are more effective than crystalloids in restoring plasma volume [5], they are widely used for resuscitation and maintenance purposes.

During recent decades, previous knowledge has been questioned. First, it was discovered that endothelial glycocalyx is the key structure to regulate microvascular hemodynamics, not oncotic pressure. These studies have led to a revised Starling principle and a new approach to vascular fluid dynamics [6]. Second, many large trials in critically ill patients and subsequent meta-analyses report potential clinical side effects of IV fluids, especially 0.9% NaCl which is associated with the development of metabolic acidosis that results in kidney injury and increases mortality rates [7, 8]. Synthetic colloids were also reported to cause side effects in kidney function and hemostasis [911]. Therefore, the use of all hydroxyethyl starches (HES) became restricted in critical illness, renal failure, or coagulopathy by the European Medicine Agency in 2013 and in sepsis patients by the Survival Sepsis Campaign 2012 [12]. Balanced crystalloids are currently the first choice of resuscitation in critically ill patients [2]. This knowledge has been applied to perioperative settings even though the results are inconsistent from the small number of studies with different physiological changes [1].

Our goal was to systematically review the latest evidence of perioperative intravenous fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery with a focus on the types of fluids. Volume, administration technique, and surgery beyond the abdominal field were not reviewed.

2. Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [13] guideline was used to conduct this systematic review.

2.1. Literature Search

We searched Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid) databases on 16 December 2019. The keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms to search Medline were major abdominal surgery; any known intravenous fluid; and possible perioperative complication. The full search is included in Appendix S1. Search strategies were adapted for the other databases. The applied restrictions were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); English only; age more than 18 years; and human trial. The year of publication was not restricted.

2.2. Study Selection/Inclusion and Exclusion

Two levels of screening were used independently by two reviewers (SN and OA). First, the titles and abstracts of the included studies were screened and then the full text was reviewed. The included studies followed these inclusion criteria: (1) the population of patients was more than 18 years old and had undergone elective major abdominal surgery which was defined as any operation with peritoneum cavity exposure with resection and/or anastomosis; (2) intervention using two or more types or doses of intravenous fluids; and (3) the reported outcomes related to bleeding, hemodynamic status, length of hospital stay, and complications such as kidney injury, electrolyte abnormality, major cardiac adverse event, nausea, vomiting, and mortality. The excluded articles were duplicate or retracted studies, organ donor or animal studies, case reports, and case series. Any difference of opinion was resolved by discussion.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Two authors (SN and OA) extracted data into a data sheet. The extracted data included type of surgery, number of patients, fluid regimen, and the primary and secondary outcomes of each paper. The quality of the studies was independently assessed with the Cochrane tool to assess the risk of bias for RCTs [14] in the following domains: randomization method; allocation concealment; blinding; data completeness; and publication bias. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion.

2.4. Data Analysis

The studies that compared the microcirculation and intravascular volume effect between colloid and crystalloid were selected for analysis. The total intraoperative volume to achieve hemodynamic parameters was used to represent the effect of crystalloid and colloid on microcirculation. The standard mean difference (SMD) was used to demonstrate the effect size of the types of fluid.

3. Results

3.1. Identification of Studies

The initial search in Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid) identified 1,412 articles of which 421 are duplications. A further 938 were excluded because they did not fulfill the selection criteria. Fifty-six articles were selected for full-text reading. Thirteen articles were then excluded for the reasons described in Figure 1. Three additional RCT studies [1517] were added after a cross-reference review.

3.2. Study Characteristics and Patient Populations

A total of 43 RCTs were included. The total numbers of patients in the included studies varied from 21 to 259 patients. Most of the studies reported around 30 patients per intervention. The types of surgery included cystectomy, radical prostatectomy, hepatectomy, laparoscopic/open colorectal surgery, gastrectomy, open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, laparoscopic/open cholecystectomy, kidney transplantation, and liver transplantation. The main characteristics of the studies are shown in Table 1, and the types of study fluids are shown in Table 2. Full data sheet is shown in Table S1.


Author, yearsNAge, range (average)Sex (M/F)ASA (N)Fluid AFluid BFluid COperationPrimary outcome/primary end point

Ando et al. [18], 20082167 (60, 70)12/9I/II (9/12)Acetate RingerHES70/0.5 (Hespander)Major abdominal surgeryUrinary microalbumin/creatinine ratio
Chaudhary et al. [19], 20086041 ± 11.06I/IILRS 2 mL/kgLRS 12 mL/kg4.5% hetastarch 12 mL/kgOpen cholecystectomyPONV at 24 hours (VAS)
Demir et al. [20], 20183642.72 ± 13.2525/11II/III/IV (21/8/7)6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)4% gelatin (Gelofusine)Living donor liver transplantRenal function (Cr, BUN, and GFR)
Deng et al. [21], 20173640–8020/16I/IILRS4% gelatin (Gelofusine)4.5% NaCl in 7.6% HES40Laparoscopic colonic surgeryMucosal blood flow (Pg-aCO2)
Feldheiser et al. [15], 20134852.5 (45.5, 59)I/II/III (4/24/20)Jonosteril6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)Cytoreductive surgeryAmount of fluid
Ghodraty et al. [22], 20179153.2 ± 12.360/31II/III (38/53)LRS6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)GI surgeryPresence of bowel function
Hung et al. [23], 20148048 ± 10.748/32LRS6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)Major abdominal surgeryThromboelastogram
Ickx et al. [24], 20034062 (47–72)39/1II/III6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)6% HES200/0.5 (HAES-steril)Major abdominal surgeryPlasma substitution effect (CO, RVEDV)
Jin et al. [25], 20104249 ± 1015/27I/IILRS6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)4% gelatin (Gelofusine)GastrectomyThromboelastogram
Joosten et al. [17], 201816062 (48–70)96/84II/III (93/67)Plasmalyte6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)Major abdominal surgeryPostoperative complication at day 2
Kammerer et al. [26], 201810070 (61–75)81/19I/II/III/IV (6/38/63/2)5% human albumin6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)CystectomySerum cystatin C ratio (preoperative/ postoperative day 90)
Kancir et al. [27], 20153664 (4.8)NSS6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)Radical cystectomyUrine NGAL
Khajavi et al. [28], 20085440 ± 14NSSLRSLiving donor kidney transplantSerum potassium and pH
Kim et al. [29], 20136046 ± 1238/22III/IVNSSPlasmalyteLiving donor kidney transplantRenal function
Lavu et al. [30], 201425968.3 (25–91)39%/46%III (167)LRS3% sodium chloridePancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative complication
Liang et al. [31], 20103557 ± 815/20I/II6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)6% HES200/0.5 (HAES-steril)Laparoscopy-assisted radical colectomyThromboelastogram
Loffel et al. [32], 20164471.5 (33–82)30/14II/III (28/16)Ringer maleateChloride-depleted glucose solution 5% (G5K)CystectomyFirst defecation
Mahmood et al. [33], 20076272 (7)50/126% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)4% gelatin (Gelofusine)Open AAA repairSplanchnic perfusion (gastric pH)
Mahmood et al. [34], 20096272 (7)50/126% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)4% gelatin (Gelofusine)Open AAA repairRenal function (Cr, GFR)
Marik et al. [35], 199730LRSHES670/0.75 (hetastarch)Open AAA repairMaximal change of gastric pH
Mishra et al. [36], 201710039.6 ± 11.5428/72I/II (81/19)NSS5% DextroseLaparoscopic cholecystectomyIncidence of PONV
Modi et al. [37], 20127218–62-NSSLRSLiving donor kidney transplantAcidosis, potassium
Mukhtar et al. [38], 20094051 ± 635/55% human albumin6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)Living donor liver transplantCreatinine clearance at 24 hours
O’Malley et al. [39], 20055144 ± 1332/19NSSLRSKidney transplantCr at postoperative day 3
Potura et al. [40], 201514856 ± 1395/53NSSElomel-IsotonCadaveric kidney transplantPerioperative hyperkalemia
Ragaller et al. [41], 20002968.4 ± 8.526/3I/II/III6% HES200/0.5 + 0.9%NaCl6% HES200/0.5 + 7.2%NaClOpen AAA repairAmount of fluid to restore PCWP
Rao et al. [42], 201711219–60I/IILRS5% dextroseLaparoscopic cholecystectomyIncidence of PONV
Rasmussen et al. [43], 20143364.1 (7.9)26/7I/II/IIILRSDextran 70CystectomyThromboelastogram
Rasmussen et al. [44], 20153768 (61.9–74.3)27/10I/II/IIILRS5% human albuminCystectomyThromboelastogram
Rasmussen et al. [45], 20163969 (66–72)25/14I/II/IIILRS6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)CystectomyThromboelastogram
Rittoo et al. [46], 20022270.6 ± 2.1815/74% gelatin (Gelofusine)6% HES200/0.62 (Elohes)Open AAA repairSplanchnic perfusion (gastric pH)
Rittoo et al. [47], 20054071.2 (6.7)30/104% gelatin (Gelofusine)6% HES200/0.62 (Elohes)Open AAA repairInflammatory marker
Sander et al. [48], 20035645 ± 15I/II/III (16/36/4)6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)6% HES200/0.5Major gynecological surgeryHemodynamic maintenance
Senagore et al. [49], 200964I/II/IIIStandard-LRGoal-directed LRGoal-directed hetastarchLaparoscopic colonic surgeryLength of hospital stay
Szturz et al. [50], 201411561 (27–87)83/32I/II/III/IVLRS6% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)Major urological surgeryEfficiency of volume expansion
Vogt et al. [51], 19994865 (7.1)I/II/III (4/33/13)5% human albumin6% HES200/0.5Major urological surgeryHemodynamic stability effect
Waters et al. [52], 20016669.8 ± 8.7I-IV (III)NSSLRSOpen AAA repairChange in base excess
Weinberg et al. [53], 20156063 (38–85)36/24I/II/III (1/26/33)Hartmann solutionPlasmalyteMajor liver resectionImmediate postoperative base excess
Weinberg et al. [54], 20174949 (26–67)33/16NSSPlasmalyteCadaveric kidney transplantPostoperative hyperkalemia 48 hours
Yates et al. [16], 201420272 (56–88)117/85I/II/III/IV (20/119/62/1)Hartmann solution6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)Colorectal surgeryGI morbidity at postoperative day 5
Yuan et al. [55], 200812756.1 ± 15.369/58NSS20% human albuminMajor abdominal surgeryAlbumin level
Zhang et al. [56], 20126056.7 ± 6.942/18I/II (32/28)Restricted-LRGoal-directed LRGoal-directed HES130/0.4GI surgeryLength of hospital stay
Zhu et al. [57], 20187173 ± 746/34I/IILRS4% gelatin (Gelofusine)4.5% NaCl in 7.6% HES40Laparoscopic colonic surgerySplanchnic perfusion (gastric pH)

HES = hydroxyethyl starch, LRS = lactated Ringer’s solution, VAS = visual analog scale, BUN = blood urea nitrogen, Cr = creatinine clearance, GFR = glomerular filtration rate, CO = cardiac output, RVEDV = right ventricular end diastolic volume, NSS = normal saline solution, AAA = abdominal aortic aneurysm, PCWP = pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and PONV = postoperative nausea vomiting.

FluidNa+K+ClCa2+Mg2+HCO3-BufferGlucose (g/L)OtherMolecular wt (kDa)/C2 : C6 ratioOsmolarityOncotic pressure (mmHg)pH (in vitro)Initial volume expansion (%)Persistence in the body (days)Maximal daily dose (per kg)

Plasma14051004.424.4Lactate 12857.4
0.9% NaCl (NSS)1541543086
3% NaCl51351310264.5
5% Dextrose502524.5
5% Dextrose/ 0.45%NaCl7777504064
Lactated Ringer solution (Hartmann’s solution, LRS)13041093Lactate 282736.5
Plasmalyte1405983Acetate 27 Gluconate 232947.4
Jonosteril13741101.61.2Acetate 36.8nana---
Ringer maleate (Ringerfundin)14541272.51Maleate 5 Acetate 24nana
G5K solution50306502HPO4 8Lactate 1850454na
4%–5% Albumin130–160130–16030920–297.180--
Dextran70154154na56–68na12028–421.5
6% HES 670/0.75 (hetastarch)154154670/4.5 : 130925–305.51004–620
6% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)154154200/9 : 1na25–30na1106–720
6% HES 200/0.5 (Hesteril)154154200/5 : 1Na30–37na1003–433
6% HES 130/0.4 NSS (Voluven)154154130/9 : 130836na1002–350
6% HES 130/0.4 balanced solution (Volulyte)13741103Acetate 34130/9 : 1287nana1002–350
6% HES 70/0.5 in balanced solution (Hespander)105492.32.7Lactate 2070/3 : 1na1001–220
4% succinylated gelatin (Gelofusine)154125302747.1–7.7802–7

Note. Electrolyte concentrations, osmolarity, and pH may be subject to small differences in other reports. HES = hydroxyethyl starch; kDa = kilodalton.
3.3. Quality of the Included Studies

The results of the quality assessments of all studies are shown in Figure 2. Ten studies were considered high risk for blinding of participants due to safety issues. Two studies had a high risk of detection bias due to the open-label study. Most of the trials followed patients for a short period; therefore, missing data or lost to follow-up rates were low.

3.4. Qualitative Review
3.4.1. Macrocirculation and Intravascular Volume Effect

Table 3 shows the results of 16 trials [1517, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, 41, 4751, 56, 57] that reported the volume effects of fluids. Lavu et al. [30] compared 3% NaCl to lactated Ringer’s solution (LRS) in patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy using the fluid restriction technique and found lower perioperative intake in the 3% NaCl group (278 vs. 315 mL/kg; value = 0.017) to maintain hemodynamic status. Six studies compared HES 130/0.4 (Volulyte [1517] and Voluven [23, 27, 50]) to crystalloids. All of them reported good volume expansion according to stable hemodynamic parameters and needed both lower amounts of intraoperative fluids and inotropes to maintain hemodynamic status. Yates et al. [16] and Zhang et al. [56] who used goal-directed fluid therapy also reported colloids at crystalloid ratios of 1.6 : 1 and 1.67 : 1 to maintain the same hemodynamics in their trials. Vogt et al. [51] reported 6% HES 200/0.5 was an economical alternative to 5% human albumin for resuscitation because they had the same volume expansion effects although a lower serum colloid osmotic pressure was reported in the HES group. Two studies [24, 48] compared HES 130/0.4 to HES 200/0.5 and found no differences in the hemodynamic parameters, but HES 200/0.5 in one study [21] had a prolonged INR (1.25 ± 0.19 vs. 1.18 ± 0.09; value<0.05). Ragaller et al. [41] reported HES 200 in 7.2% NaCl could restore the hemodynamics faster than HES 200 in 0.9% NaCl using pulmonary capillary wedge pressure guidance. Two studies [21, 57] compared 4% gelatin to 4.5% NaCl in 7.6% HES 40. Deng el al. [21] favored hypertonic NaCl-HES due to a more stable systemic vascular resistance index but Zhu [57] reported no significant differences in the hemodynamics.


Author, yearFluid comparedNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: hemodynamic parameters (dynamic parameter, static parameter, and colloid oncotic pressure)
Vogt [51], 19996% HES 200/0.5
5% human albumin
48Major urological surgeryNo significant difference in static hemodynamic parameters
HES has lower colloid oncotic pressure
Ragaller [41], 20006% HES 200/0.5 + 7.2%NaCl
6% HES 200/0.5 + 0.9%NaCl
29Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairHypertonic NaCl-HES needed lower volume and restored PCWP faster than HES in NSS after aortic clamp off
Ickx [24], 20036% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)
6% HES200/0.5
40Major abdominal surgeryNo significant difference in dynamic hemodynamic parameter
No significant difference in colloid oncotic pressure
Sander [48], 20036% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)
6% HES200/0.5
56Major gynecologicalNo significant difference in static hemodynamic parameter
No significant difference in volume needed to maintain hemodynamics
Feldheiser [15], 2013Jonosteril
6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)
48Cytoreductive surgeryHES reduced need for FFP and IV fluid to maintain hemodynamics. No significant difference in need for inotrope.
Szturz [50], 2014LRS
HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
115Major urological surgeryHES reduced need for FFP and IV fluid to maintain hemodynamics

Primary outcome was another objective but also had these outcomes
Rittoo [47], 2005HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
40Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairLower HES intake to maintain hemodynamics compared to gelatin
Senagore [49], 2009Standard-LRS
GD-LRS
GD-hetastarch balance
64Laparoscopic colonic surgeryLower HES intake to achieved target stroke volume
Zhang [56], 2012Restricted-LRS
GD-LRS
GD-HES 130/0.4
Crystalloid : colloid ratio = 1.67 : 1
60GI surgeryHES reduced need of IV fluid to maintain hemodynamics
Hung [23], 2014LRS
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
80Major abdominal surgeryHES reduced need of IV fluid to maintain hemodynamics
Lavu [30], 2014LRS
3% NaCl
259Pancreaticoduodenectomy3% NaCl reduced need of IV fluid to static maintain hemodynamics
Yates [16], 2014Hartmann’s solution
6% HES 130/0.4 (Volulyte)
Crystalloid : colloid ratio = 1.6 : 1
202Colorectal surgeryHES reduced IV fluid to maintain hemodynamics
Kancir [27], 2015NSS
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
36Radical prostatectomyNo significant difference in fluid need to maintain hemodynamics
Deng [21], 2017LRS
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
4.5% NaCl in 7.6% HES 40
36Laparoscopic colonic surgeryHS-HES can prolong effect of volume expansion and decreased systemic vascular resistance index
Joosten [17], 2018Plasmalyte
6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)
160Major abdominal surgeryHES reduced need of IV fluid to maintain hemodynamics by dynamic monitoring

HES = hydroxyethyl starch, NaCl = sodium chloride, PCWP = pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, NSS = normal saline solution, LRS = lactated Ringer’s solution, FFP = fresh frozen plasma, GD = goal-directed therapy, and GI = gastrointestinal.

Among the trails in which results were related to macrocirculation and intravascular volume, eight studies [16, 17, 21, 23, 27, 49, 50, 56] compared between colloid and crystalloid. Only 3 studies mentioned the mean of intraoperative fluid volume [23, 49, 56]. The SMD was −0.638 (95% CI −1.137 to −0.138, ). The forest plot is shown in Figure 3.

3.4.2. Microcirculation

Table 4 shows the results of five RCT studies [21, 34, 35, 46, 57] that examined the effects of fluid types on microcirculation via splanchnic circulation. Three studies were conducted in open abdominal aortic aneurysm [34, 35, 46]. Marik et al. [35] compared LRS to hetastarch (Hespan) and found that the HES group had higher gastric pH values which better represented microcirculation compared to crystalloids ( value<0.001). Rittoo [46] and Mahmood et al. [34] compared HES to gelatin and found that HES 200/0.62 could maintain higher gastric pH. Deng [21] and Zhu [57] compared 4% gelatin to hypertonic NaCl-HES by the acute hypervolemic infusion technique in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Using the gastric pH value combined with the gastric-arterial CO2 gradient, Deng [21] reported that hypertonic NaCl-HES was better while data from Zhu [57] supported gelatin.


Author, yearFluid comparedNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: Gastric pH and Pg-aCO2
Marik [35], 1997LRS
HES 670/0.75 (hetastarch)
30Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairHES 670/0.75 improved splanchnic mucosal blood flow (gastric pH)
Rittoo [46], 20026% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
22Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairHES 200/0.5 improved splanchnic mucosal blood flow (gastric pH)
Mahmood [34], 20096% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
62Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairHES is better than gelatin but HES 200/0.62 was the best in decreasing gastric pH after clamp off
Deng [21], 2017LRS
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
4.5% NaCl in 7.6% HES40
36Laparoscopic colonic surgeryNo significant splanchnic mucosal blood flow (Pg-aCO2)
Zhu [57], 2018LRS
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
4.5% NaCl in 7.6% HES 40
71Laparoscopic colonic surgery4% gelatin was the best in maintaining gastric pH > 7.32 for more than 60 minutes of operation

HES = hydroxyethyl starch, NaCl = sodium chloride, and LRS = lactated Ringer’s solution.
3.4.3. Anti-Inflammatory Parameters and Vascular Permeability

Table 5 shows the results of six trials [16, 18, 33, 34, 46, 47] that studied the effects of colloids on the inflammatory process. Rittoo et al. [46, 47] and Mahmood et al. [33, 34] compared the effects of HES 200/0.62 (Elohes) and HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) to 4% gelatin (Gelofusine) in four RCTs that were performed in patients who underwent open aortic aneurysm repair. Using CRP, IL-6, and the lung injury score as biomarkers of the inflammatory process and the microalbumin/creatinine (Cr) ratio to indicate glomerular microvascular permeability, they reported that Elohes could decrease the inflammatory process by decreasing the CRP level which led to decreased microalbumin and von Willebrand factor (vWF) levels. Two studies compared medium to low molecular weight HES (HES 130/0.4 (Volulyte) [16] and HES 70/0.5 (Hespander) [18]) to balanced crystalloids. They found that both solutions did not significantly decrease the inflammation parameters and did not alter vascular permeability [18].


Author, yearFluid comparedNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: inflammatory mediators (IL-6, CRP, ICAM-1, and vWF) and vascular permeability (urine albumin/Cr ratio)
Rittoo [46], 20026% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
22Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairHES 200/0.62 lowered CRP but no difference in IL-6 level
Rittoo [47], 20056% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
40Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairHES 200/0.62 decreased inflammatory process and reduced endothelial activation
Mahmood [33], 20076% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
62Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairLess derangement in marker of glomerular and tubular function in HES 200/0.62 and HES130/0.4
Ando [18], 2008HES 70/0.5 (Hespander)
Acetate Ringer
20Major abdominal surgeryNo significant difference in inflammatory markers and vascular permeability

Primary outcome was another objective but also had these outcomes
Mahmood [34], 20096% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
Endotoxin level increased in gelatin group
62Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairHES 200/0.62 mostly decreased inflammatory process (CRP, but not lung injury score)
Yates [16], 20146% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)
Hartmann’s solution
202Colorectal surgeryNo significant difference in inflammatory marker

IL-6 = interleukin-6; CRP = C-reactive protein; ICAM-1 = intercellular adhesion molecule-1; vWF = von Willebrand factor; Cr = creatinine; HES = hydroxyethyl starch; GI = gastrointestinal; POD = postoperative day.
3.4.4. Renal Function (Colloid vs. Colloid/Crystalloid)

Table 6 shows the results of 10 RCTs that reported the effects of fluids on renal function. Five trials [1518, 27] compared colloids to crystalloids and five trials [20, 26, 33, 38, 47] compared HES to other colloids or human albumin. Ando et al. [18] compared low molecular weight HES (HES 70/0.5 or Hespander) to acetate Ringer’s solution and found a significant difference in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the urinary microalbumin/Cr ratio from intraoperative evaluations to discharge. Kancir et al. [27] reported no renal toxicity when HES 130/04 (Voluven) was compared to normal saline solution (NSS) using serum neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and Cr as the parameters. Three studies [1517] compared balanced HES (Volulyte) to balanced crystalloids. The largest trial [17], which included 80 patients per group, did not show any differences in the renal function tests. In comparisons of HES to other colloids, HES 200/0.62 (Elohes) showed better renal function than 4% gelatin (Gelofusine) in two studies [33, 47] using Cr and urine albumin as the parameters. Demir et al. [20] compared HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) to 4% gelatin (Gelofusine) in patients who underwent a liver transplant and reported a nonsignificant incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) grade I in the gelatin group (2 vs. 5). Two studies [26, 38] compared HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) to 5% human albumin and reported no differences in the renal dysfunction at neither immediate postoperation [36, 38] nor 3-month postoperation [38] using the cystatin C/Cr ratio.


Author, yearFluid comparedNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: renal function (serum Cr, GFR, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, urine albumin, and cystatin C)
Mahmood [33], 20076% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
62Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairLess derangement in marker of glomerular filtration and tubular function in both HES groups
No difference in AKI or RRT
Mukhtar [38], 20095% human albumin
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
40Living donor liver transplantNo difference in serum Cr, CrCl, or cystatin C level
No difference in AKI or RRT
Demir [20], 20156% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
36Living donor liver transplantSignificantly decreased GFR in gelatin group
No difference in AKI or RRT
Kancir [27], 20156% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
NSS
36ProstatectomyNo significant difference in renal impairment by U-NGAL, P-NGAL, and serum Cr
Kammerer [26], 20185% human albumin
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
100CystectomyNo significant difference in renal impairment by cystatin C ratio, P-NGAL, and GFR

Primary outcome was another objective but also had these outcomes
Rittoo [47], 20056% HES 200/0.62 (Elohes)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
40Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairLess derangement in marker of glomerular function in HES group
Ando [18], 2008Acetate Ringer
HES 70/0.5 (Hespander)
20Major abdominal surgeryNo difference in glomerular function (urine Albumin/ Cr ratio), GFR
Feldheiser [15], 2013Jonosteril
6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)
48Cytoreductive surgeryNo significant renal function impairment (P-NGAL and Cr)
Yates [16], 2014Hartmann’s solution
6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)
202Colorectal surgeryNo significant renal function impairment
Joosten [17], 2018Plasmalyte
6% HES130/0.4 (Volulyte)
160Major abdominal surgeryNo significant renal function impairment or RRT

HES = hydroxyethyl starch, AKI = acute kidney injury, RRT = renal replacement therapy, CrCl = creatinine clearance, GFR = glomerular filtration rate, NSS = normal saline solution, U-NGAL = urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, P-NGAL = plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, and Cr = creatinine.
3.4.5. Renal Function and Electrolyte Imbalance (Balanced Solutions vs. Saline Solution)

Table 7 shows the results of eight [28, 29, 37, 39, 40, 5254] trials that studied the effects of crystalloids on renal function. Waters et al. [52] compared the effects of NSS to LRS in patients who underwent open aortic repair. Six studies compared the effect of NSS to balanced crystalloid solutions (LRS [28, 37, 39], Plasmalyte [29, 54], and acetate buffer crystal [40]) in kidney transplant patients. The outcomes were the same as NSS which induced hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis with hyperkalemia during the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods. One study [54] reported that hemodialysis was needed more frequently to treat hyperkalemia in the NSS group (13 vs. 4; value = 0.02). Weinberg et al. [53] compared Plasmalyte to Hartmann’s solution in liver resection patients. They reported no difference in renal function but Hartmann’s solution showed a higher median (interquartile range (IQR)) intraoperative bleeding of 500 mL (300,638) vs. 300 mL (200,413) ( value = 0.03) along with coagulopathy and overall complications (56% vs. 20%; value = 0.007).


Author, yearFluid comparedNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: renal function or electrolyte abnormality
Waters [52], 2001NSS
LRS
66Abdominal aortic aneurysm repairNSS had more hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis
No difference in Cr, AKI but no K report
O’Malley [39], 2005NSS
LRS
51Living donor kidney transplantNSS had more hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis
No difference in Cr, AKI, K, and incidence of dialysis to 6 months
Khajavi [28], 2008NSS
LRS
54Living donor kidney transplantNSS had more hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis
NSS had higher K level postoperation; no difference in Cr level
Modi [37], 2012NSS
LRS
72Living donor kidney transplantNSS had more hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis
NSS had higher K level postoperation; no difference in Cr level
Kim [29], 2013NSS
Plasmalyte
60Living donor kidney transplantNSS had more negative base excess and chloride
No difference in urine output, Cr, Cl
Potura [40], 2015NSS
Acetate-buffered crystalloid (Elomel-Isoton)
148Cadaveric kidney transplantNSS had more negative base excess
No difference in urine output, Cr, Cl, and dialysis
No difference in number of patients having K level >5.4
Weinberg [53], 2015Hartmann solution
Plasmalyte
60Major liver resectionHigher magnesium but lower calcium in Plasmalyte group
No difference in base excess and Cr
Weinberg [54], 2017NSS
Plasmalyte
49Cadaveric kidney transplantNSS had more hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and hyperkalemia which led to dialysis or medication treatment

NSS = normal saline solution, LRS = lactated Ringer’s solution, Cr = creatinine, AKI = acute kidney injury, and K = potassium.
3.4.6. Coagulation Defect and Bleeding

Table 8 shows the results of eight studies that focused on bleeding tendency [16, 23, 25, 27, 31, 4345]. With the exception of the Yates [16] study, most studies were small with n < 50. The thromboelastogram (TEG) was used as the primary outcome in all of the studies. Jin et al. [25] compared 6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) to 4% gelatin (Gelofusine) using LRS as the control. They found that HES delayed clot formation measured by the TEG parameters (reaction (R) time, kinetic (K) time, and α angle) and impaired platelet function by decreased function of coagulation factors VIII : C and vWF. Jin et al. [25] also demonstrated that gelatin reduced clot quality at one hour after loading that was indicated by a decreased TEG maximum amplitude (MA) value. Liang et al. [31] compared HES 200/0.5 to HES 130/0.4 in laparoscopic colectomy in the preload infusion technique. He found that HES 200/0.5 resulted in an impaired TEG R time, MA value, and decreased expressions of GPIIb/IIIa and CD62P ( value<0.05). Three studies [16, 23, 43] compared HES 130/0.4 to balanced crystalloids. Yates et al. [16] did not find a significant difference in the TEG parameters while two other reports [23, 43] found impaired TEG MA and K values ( value<0.05) in HES 130/0.4 that was associated with a greater mean (SD) blood loss (2181 (1190) vs. 1370 (603) mL; value = 0.038) [43]. Kancir et al. [28] also reported greater mean (SD) bleeding when HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) was compared to NSS (1256 mL (669) vs. 747 mL (331); value = 0.008). Rasmussen et al. also reported that 5% human albumin [45] and Dextran70 [44] affected TEG MA. Dextran70 was also associated with the incidence of significant bleeding (>1500 mL) in cystectomy compared to LRS (n (%): 11 (58) vs. 4 (22); value = 0.04) without significant difference in the amounts of mean blood loss (2339 vs. 1822 mL; value = 0.27) [44].


Author, yearsFluid comparisonsNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: coagulation
Jin [25], 2010LRS
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
4% gelatin (Gelofusine)
36GastrectomyHES impaired clot initiation and impaired platelet function
Gelatin reduced clot firmness
No difference in blood loss
Liang [31], 20106% HES 200/0.5 (HAES-steril6%)
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
35Laparoscopy-assisted radical colectomyHES 200/0.5 impaired clotting time, clot firmness, and impaired platelet function more than HES 130/0.4
No difference in blood loss
Hung [23], 2014LRS
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
80Major abdominal surgeryHES 130/0.4 impaired clot initiation and strength
No difference in blood loss
Rasmussen [43], 2014LRS
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
33CystectomyHES 130/0.4 impaired clot strength and firmness
HES 130/0.4 caused more blood loss than LRS
Rasmussen [44], 2015Dextran70
LRS
37CystectomyDextran70 impaired clot firmness and incidence of blood loss >1500 mL
No difference in mean blood loss
Rasmussen [45], 20165% human albumin
LRS
39Cystectomy5% human albumin impaired clot firmness
No difference in blood loss

Primary outcome was another objective but also had these outcomes
Yates [16], 2014Hartmann’s solution
6% HES 130/0.4 (Volulyte)
202Colorectal surgeryNo significant difference in TEG or blood loss
Kancir [27], 2015NSS
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
36Radical prostatectomySignificant blood loss in HES

HES = hydroxyethyl starch, NSS = normal saline solution, LRS = lactated Ringer’s solution, and TEG = thromboelastogram.
3.4.7. Return to Bowel Function

Table 9 shows four studies that reported bowel function [16, 22, 32, 56]. Loffel et al. [32] compared chloride-depleted glucose solution 5% (G5K) to Ringer’s maleate solution and found that G5K could enhance bowel recovery time by 38 hours. Two studies that compared 6% HES 130/0.4 to balanced crystalloid reported faster bowel recovery according to the first flatus time (86 ± 7.2 vs. 95 ± 9.1; value<0.03) [56] and (73.4 ± 20.8 vs. 86.7 ± 20.8; value = 0.006) [22]. In contrast, Yates et al. [16] conducted a large trial (n = 202) that compared balanced crystalloid to balanced 6% HES 130/0.4 (Volulyte). The results showed no difference in the number of patients who tolerated diet at postoperative day 5 (30% vs. 32%) or in the time to first flatus.


Author, yearFluid comparedNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: return to bowel function, ileus, passing flatus, defecation, or enteral food tolerance
Yates [16], 2014Hartmann’s solution
6% HES 130/0.4 (Volulyte)
202Colorectal surgeryNo difference in bowel recovery time
Loffel [32], 2016Chloride-depleted glucose solution 5% (G5K)
Ringer maleate
44CystectomyG5K group could pass normal stool faster than RM (38 hours)
Ghodraty [22], 2017LRS
6% HES 130/0.4 (Voluven)
91GI surgeryHES 130/0.4 reduced time of postoperative ileus (13 hours)

Primary outcome was another objective but also had these outcomes
Zhang [56], 2012Restricted-LRS (20)
GD-LRS (20)
GD-HES130/0.4 (20)
60GI surgeryGoal-directed HES 130/0.4 reduced time to pass flatus (6 hours compared to restricted group and 9 hours compared to GD-LRS)

HES = hydroxyethyl starch, LRS = lactated Ringer’s solution, GI = gastrointestinal, and GD = goal-directed therapy.
3.4.8. Postoperative Nausea Vomiting (PONV)

Table 10 shows four studies that reported the effects of fluid on PONV [19, 22, 36, 42]. Chaudary et al. [19] used preoperative intravenous volume loading by LRS and hetastarch. They found that both fluids decreased the rate of PONV and vomiting at four hours after operation compared to the IV restricted group. Two studies [36, 42] that compared LRS to 5% dextrose in laparoscopic cholecystectomy showed that 5% dextrose fluid decreased the rate of PONV by more than 50%. One study [22] showed that 6% HES 130/0.4 decreased the vomiting rate compared to LRS (11% vs. 3%; value = 0.266) in gastrointestinal surgery.


Author, yearFluid comparedNOperationConclusion

Primary outcome: PONV
Chaudhary [19], 2008LRS 2 mL/kg
LRS 12 mL/kg
4.5% hetastarch 12 mL/kg
60Open cholecystectomyPreoperative fluid supplement rate (12 mL/kg) (both colloid and crystalloid) decreases incidence of PONV, vomiting, and use of antiemetic
Mishra [36], 2017NSS
5% dextrose
100Laparoscopic cholecystectomy5% dextrose fluid reduced incidence of PONV, but not vomiting
Rao [42], 2017LRS
5% dextrose
112Laparoscopic cholecystectomyPostoperative IV loading 1000 mL of 5% dextrose fluid reduced incidence of PONV, but not vomiting

Primary outcome was another objective but also had these outcome
Ghodraty [22], 20176% HES130/0.4 (Voluven)
LRS
91GI surgeryHES 130/0.4 reduced incidence of vomiting, but not PONV

PONV = postoperative nausea vomiting, HES = hydroxyethyl starch, NSS = normal saline solution, LRS = lactated Ringer’s solution, and GI = gastrointestinal.
3.4.9. Other

Yuan et al. [55] compared 20% human albumin to NSS in hypoalbuminemia patients in major abdominal surgery during postoperative days 0–2 and found no clinical or albumin level difference to postoperative day 7. Senagore et al. [49] compared 6% hetastarch in a balanced salt solution to LRS in patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with goal-directed therapy. They reported an increased mean number of complications per patient (2 ± 1.7 vs. 4.4 ± 4) and a prolonged length of hospital stay of 6 hours in the hetastarch group. Feldheiser [15] compared 6% HES 130/04 (Volulyte) to balanced crystalloid and reported a higher mortality rate at 3 months after operation in patients who received HES (0 vs. 5; value = 0.051). However, 4 of the 5 had progressive diseases, and Joosten [17] reported a higher incidence of anastomosis leakage in the crystalloid (Plasmalyte) group than in the colloid (Volulyte) group (8 vs. 0; value = 0.046).

4. Discussion

Nowadays, the type of fluid therapy in perioperative settings is still debatable concerning the risks and benefits. The data from small single-center studies are still inconsistent. This systematic review compares each type of fluid for perioperative fluid therapy in major abdominal surgery. We found large heterogeneous outcomes due to various types of fluids compared (both colloids and crystalloids), variations in the fluid therapy protocols, types of abdominal surgery, and different parameters in outcome measurement. We attempted to group them into topics of interest.

Restoring and maintaining tissue perfusion is the primary goal of fluid therapy. In the present review using the parameters of lower fluid intake and greater hemodynamic stability, the macrocirculation or volume expansion effect showed more positive results in the colloid group compared to the crystalloid group with SMD of −0.638 (95% CI −1.137 to −0.138, ). A lower fluid balance can decrease the incidence of complications from volume overload such as ileus, pulmonary edema, and impaired wound healing. [58] Complications from higher colloid intake were demonstrated in the Senagore trial [49] which was the first study to demonstrate goal-directed therapy using colloids compared to crystalloids. It was reported that the hetastarch group had a significantly higher volume compared to the crystalloid results that resulted in a high frequency of total postoperative complications and longer length of stay. The authors could not identify the cause of this event. When each colloid was compared, there were no differences in hemodynamic outcomes. In our opinion, each colloid has its initial volume expansion, colloid oncotic pressure, and half-life [59]. Hypertonic saline [30] (also with HES in hypertonic saline [21, 41]) demonstrates good volume expansion compared to an isotonic saline (and HES in 0.9% NaCl). Hypertonic saline draws water out of the intracellular compartment and into the intravascular space leading to restoration of the circulating volume with smaller volumes of fluid and reduced intracranial pressure in cases associated with traumatic brain injury [60]. However, a large trial in prehospital trauma patients demonstrated a nonsignificant higher mortality rate in the hypertonic saline group [61] which may also lead to coagulopathy, increased acidosis, hypothermia, kidney injury, and immunologic disorder [62]. Yates [16] and Zhang [24] studied the colloid to crystalloid ratios of 1 : 1.6 and 1 : 1.67, respectively, in perioperative settings. These ratios were higher compared to sepsis settings (1:1–1:3) [9, 10, 63] where the previously accepted ratio was 1 : 3 [60]. This result can be explained by endothelial dysfunction and capillary leakage in the postoperative period and sepsis [64].

Since stability of the vital signs and a decrease in the lactate level reflect macrovascular status, but not microcirculation [65], acceptance of these parameters may not be enough [66]. For example, abnormal splanchnic microcirculation may present in hemorrhage, sepsis, laparoscopic procedures, and in aortic cross clamp in aortic repair. Gastric mucosal hypoperfusion increases the production of mucosal CO2 (PgCO2) and decreases gastric mucosal pH (GpHi) [67]. These two parameters were used to demonstrate microcirculation in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair [34, 35, 46] during resuscitation with HES of different molecular weights, gelatin, and crystalloids. HES 130 and HES 200 were reported to have good properties to maintain microcirculation, especially HES 200. Two studies in laparoscopic colonic surgery attempted to compare gelatin to 4.5% NaCl in 7.6% HES 40. One study supported gelatin [57] while the other reported no difference [21]. The reason they did not use the same variables to report the results was because Deng [21] claimed that gastric pH is disturbed by carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum. Most of the included trials supported using colloids because they were better for microcirculation. These results were supported by Wu et al. [65] who compared NSS, 3% NaCl, 4% succinylated gelatin, and 6% HES 130/0.4 in the hemorrhagic shock rat model. This animal trial reported that all of these fluids stabilized the vital signs and renal blood flow, but only HES, gelatin, and 3% NaCl restored intestinal microcirculation that was demonstrated by laser speckle contrast imaging. Human albumin and dextran also reported effects in supporting microcirculation [66].

The release of inflammatory mediators during surgery, such as C-reactive protein and tumor necrosis factor, is one of the causes of impaired endothelial barrier function due to an increase of large pores in the endothelial lining and induced glycocalyx shedding [60] which results in capillary leakage and volume maldistribution [64]. In this review, we included the in vivo anti-inflammatory effects of colloids, mostly from abdominal aneurysm repair because this operation can cause high endotoxin levels and inflammation from ischemic-reperfusion injury after aortic clamping [33, 34, 46, 47]. HES 200/0.62 is the best in reducing inflammation and decreasing capillary leakage followed by HES 130/0.4, but 4% gelatin did not show this effect. In abdominal surgery [16, 18], HES 70 and HES 130 did not show significant effects in decreasing inflammation. This type of surgery may not cause as much inflammation as aortic repair. Anti-inflammatory effects of HES that were demonstrated in animal ischemic-reperfusion model [68] found that HES inhibited firm adhesion and decreased surface expression of CD11b of leukocytes. Chen et al. [69] reported that HES 130/0.4 decreased the levels of reactive oxygen species and tumor necrosis factor, while gelatin and HES 200 did not have such effects.

Most of the studies in this review compared crystalloids to colloids, and most of the colloids were HES. We found that every colloid demonstrated abnormal clot firmness and platelet function, but none of them had an abnormal coagulogram. Abnormality in the TEG tended to increase in medium molecular weight HES compared to the lower molecular weight HES [31]. Only two trials [27, 43] reported that HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) increased intraoperative hemorrhage compared to a crystalloid. However, both trials were in urological surgery which has a high chance of bleeding due to the raw surface. These results were similar to the meta-analysis by Rasmussen et al. [70] which reported on human albumin and both high and medium molecular weight HES. Higher bleeding was found in the subgroup of noncardiac surgery using HES 130 but no significant decrease was found in the amount of bleeding compared to HES 200. After a multivariate analysis, two trials [44, 45] reported that TEG MA is the only factor that could reflect the amount of intraoperative bleeding. The mechanism of impaired coagulation by colloids was reported by de Jonge and Levi [71] through dilutional effect, molecular weight dependent reduction of vWF (acquired von Willebrand disease), factor VIII, and clot firmness. Gelatin and albumin had the least effect on coagulation among the colloid solutions [60].

For a comparison of crystalloids in perioperative renal function, the information available was mainly from kidney transplantation patients who have a very high risk for renal failure. Most studies compared a balanced crystalloid to NSS and reported similar results. NSS caused hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and hyperkalemia in the intraoperative to postoperative periods. However, we did not find a significant difference in mortality rate, AKI, graft rejection, or kidney dysfunction. However, higher early postoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT) within 48 hours was needed to treat hyperkalemia in the Weinberg et al. trial [54]. A meta-analysis by Cochrane [72], which included 1,096 participants from 18 RCTs in major perioperative settings, also reported that increased serum creatinine, hyperkalemia, negative base excess, and low serum pH occurred in the postoperative period but most subsided within postoperative day 1. No significant incidence of long-term kidney dysfunction or mortality rate was reported. This was contrary to the results of the SALTED trial [73] (study in noncritical illness) and SMART trial [8] (study in critical illness). In these trials, resuscitation used NSS which significantly increased major adverse kidney event (compound outcome) within 30 days without a significant difference in mortality rates. A large volume of NSS was related to renal vasoconstriction [60]. All of the above information was compiled into a guideline that supports using balanced crystalloids for peri-interventional volume substitution [2]. However, there were some situations where NSS was indicated, such as the presence of cerebral edema and gastric outlet obstruction [60].

Following a report of osmotic nephrosis in kidney transplant recipients after administration of HES [74], renal function after the use of colloids became a concern. However, two studies found that HES administration had better tubular and glomerular function based on the RIFLE criteria and the level of serum Cr [33, 47]. Also, another study found a lower incidence of AKI grade 1 compared to gelatin [20]. Other trials showed no significant difference in AKI using HES compared to albumin [26, 38] or HES compared to crystalloids [18, 27]. The ALBIOS trial [63] reported no difference in mortality rate or RRT when albumin was compared to colloids in sepsis patients. Many large multicenter trials reported a higher incidence of RRT [911] and mortality rate [10] in the HES groups compared to crystalloids in sepsis patients, but they had defects in methodology [75]. In 2013, the CRISTAL trial [76] compared crystalloids (isotonic or hypertonic saline and balanced solution) to colloids (gelatin, dextran, HES, and albumin) in patients with hypovolemic shock. They reported a lower mortality rate at 30 days and lower need of vasopressor therapy in the colloid group. No differences were found in the incidence of RRT and AKI. Furthermore, the subgroups of each type of colloid still showed a lower mortality rate. A recent meta-analysis [77] which compared colloids to crystalloids reported a higher incidence of RRT and mortality rate in the pentastarch group. In a subgroup analysis of sepsis, colloids led to a higher incidence of RRT and mortality rate, but these outcomes were not significant in cardiac and general surgery. This might be explained by the mechanism of AKI in surgery where volume loss can be improved by adequate volume replacement. However, in septic AKI, microvascular dysfunction is the key mechanism [77]. Larger endothelial pores allow colloids to leak into the tissues leading to organ dysfunction, especially in the kidney [60]. Colloids with higher molecular weights, for example, pentastarch, are more harmful due to the long metabolism time.

In two trials, a solution of 5% dextrose fluid was compared to a nondextrose fluid to determine the incidence of PONV [36, 42]. The results showed that the 5% dextrose fluid decreased the incidence of PONV. However, these two trials were performed in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the IV fluid protocol required a postoperative loading of <1000 mL. A meta-analysis which focused on PONV using dextrose fluids also included uncomplicated surgeries (laparoscopic gynecological surgery and laparoscopic cholecystectomy). The results showed a decreased incidence of PONV and the need for antiemetics by a mechanism related to hyperglycemia [78]. Colloids can decrease PONV, vomiting, and the need for antiemetics compared to crystalloids [19, 22] by increased mucosal perfusion [78].

Many factors can affect bowel function and the type of fluid is also one of them. In our review, colloids could enhance bowel function compared to crystalloids, but may not have clinical significance (7 [16], 9 [56], and 13 [22] hours). All of the indicated trials used a goal-directed protocol and found a significantly lower need for fluid in the colloid groups. Using more crystalloids to achieve the same clinical volume effect as colloids can be detrimental. Crystalloids have a propensity to filter across the capillary membrane. A greater expansion of extravascular volume leads to intestinal mucosal edema and delayed recovery in postoperative ileus [79]. However, colloids can generate oncotic pressure to maintain fluid in intravascular component [80].

4.1. Limitations

The present systematic review has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, we had too many primary outcomes which resulted in including various types of fluids, volume administration protocols, and types of surgical procedures, which may account for the high heterogeneity of our results. Second, the trials included in this systematic review were often small and single-center studies. Third, the volume of a given fluid that may affect the outcome was not included in our review. Fourth, only major abdominal surgery was our surgical type. Therefore, the results may not apply to other types of surgery. Fifth, some types of fluid (dextran and gelatin) were restricted in Europe and America which resulted in low reliability of the data obtained. Sixth, most of the participants included were ASA class I–III. Therefore, it may be incorrect to apply this information to an emergency condition or higher ASA class. Finally, there were some flaws in our search methods which caused some important trials to be missed.

The strength of this review was we had many primary outcomes which resulted in including various types of fluids, volume administration protocols, and types of surgical procedures.

5. Conclusion

Perioperative fluid management depends on many factors such as patient status, type of operation, type of fluid, and administration technique. The colloids had an individual volume expansion effect, maintained microcirculation, and can be used interchangeably. Every colloid affected clot firmness and clot formation time, but only dextran significantly increased bleeding. NSS resulted in perioperative hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and hyperkalemia which may lead to RRT compared to a balanced crystalloid. No specific type of fluid increased the mortality rate.

Data Availability

All data collected in this research are available for review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors were involved in the design, data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr. Glenn Shingledecker for his assistance in proofreading the manuscript.

Supplementary Materials

The first one is “Full search term,” which consists of full search terms we used on an electronic database; it is cited as “Appendix S1” in the manuscript. The second one is “Data sheet,” which consists of full results from our systematic review; it is cited as “Table S1” in the manuscript. (Supplementary Materials)

References

  1. T. E. Miller and P. S. Myles, “Perioperative fluid therapy for major surgery,” Anesthesiology, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 825–832, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. G. Marx, A. W. Schindler, C. Mosch et al., “Intravascular volume therapy in adults,” European Journal of Anaesthesiology, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 488–521, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. T. Kampmeier, S. Rehberg, and C. Ertmer, “Evolution of fluid therapy,” Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 207–216, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. Awad, S. P. Allison, and D. N. Lobo, “The history of 0.9% saline,” Clin Nutrition, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 179–188, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  5. E. H. Starling, “On the absorption of fluids from the connective tissue spaces,” The Journal of Physiology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 312–326, 1896. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. J. R. Levick and C. C. Michel, “Microvascular fluid exchange and the revised Starling principle,” Cardiovascular Research, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 198–210, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. Xue, X. Zhang, F. Liu et al., “Effects of chloride content of intravenous crystalloid solutions in critically ill adult patients: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized trials,” Annals of Intensive Care, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 30, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. M. W. Semler, W. H. Self, J. P. Wanderer et al., “Balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 9, pp. 829–839, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  9. F. M. Brunkhorst, C. Engel, F. Bloos et al., “Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 358, no. 2, pp. 125–139, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. A. Perner, N. Haase, A. B. Guttormsen et al., “Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 367, no. 2, pp. 124–134, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. J. A. Myburgh, S. Finfer, R. Bellomo et al., “Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in intensive care,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 367, no. 20, pp. 1901–1911, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. R. P. Dellinger, M. M. Levy, A. Rhodes et al., “Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 580–637, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  13. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff et al., “Preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” PLOS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, Article ID e1000097, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. J. P. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK, 2008.
  15. A. Feldheiser, V. Pavlova, T. Bonomo et al., “Balanced crystalloid compared with balanced colloid solution using a goal-directed haemodynamic algorithm,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 231–240, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. D. R. A. Yates, S. J. Davies, H. E. Milner, and R. J. T. Wilson, “Crystalloid or colloid for goal-directed fluid therapy in colorectal surgery,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 281–289, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. A. Joosten, A. Delaporte, B. Ickx et al., “Crystalloid versus colloid for intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy using a closed-loop system,” Anesthesiology, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. Y. Ando, Y. Terao, M. Fukusaki et al., “Influence of low-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch on microvascular permeability in patients undergoing abdominal surgery: comparison with crystalloid,” Journal of Anesthesia, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 391–396, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. S. Chaudhary, A. K. Sethi, P. Motiani et al., “Pre-operative intravenous fluid therapy with crystalloids or colloids on post-operative nausea & vomiting,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 577–581, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  20. A. Demir, B. Aydinli, H. I. Toprak et al., “Impact of 6% starch 130/0.4 and 4% gelatin infusion on kidney function in living-donor liver transplantation,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1883–1889, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  21. Y. Deng, Q. Zhu, B. Yu et al., “The effects of hypervolemic infusion on microcirculation perfusion of patients during laparoscopic colorectal surgery,” Medicine, vol. 96, no. 45, Article ID e8612, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. M. R. Ghodraty, F. Rokhtabnak, H. R. Dehghan et al., “Crystalloid versus colloid fluids for reduction of postoperative ileus after abdominal operation under combined general and epidural anesthesia,” Surgery, vol. 162, no. 5, pp. 1055–1062, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. H. Hung, C. Zou, F. S. Lin, C. J. Lin, K. C. Chan, and Y. Chen, “New 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 does not increase blood loss during major abdominal surgery - a randomized, controlled trial,” Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 429–435, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  24. B. E. Ickx, F. Bepperling, C. Melot, C. Schulman, and P. J. Van der Linden, “Plasma substitution effects of a new hydroxyethyl starch HES 130/0.4 compared with HES 200/0.5 during and after extended acute normovolaemic haemodilution,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 196–202, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. S.-L. Jin and B.-W. Yu, “Effects of acute hypervolemic fluid infusion of hydroxyethyl starch and gelatin on hemostasis and possible mechanisms,” Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 91–98, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. T. Kammerer, F. Brettner, S. Hilferink et al., “No differences in renal function between balanced 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) and 5% albumin for volume replacement therapy in patients undergoing cystectomy: a randomized controlled trial,” Anesthesiology, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 67–78, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  27. A. S. Kancir, J. K. Johansen, N. P. Ekeloef et al., “The effect of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 on renal function, arterial blood pressure, and vasoactive hormones during radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 608–618, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  28. M. R. Khajavi, F. Etezadi, R. S. Moharari et al., “Effects of normal saline vs. lactated ringer’s during renal transplantation,” Renal Failure, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 535–539, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. S. Y. Kim, K. H. Huh, J. R. Lee, S. H. Kim, S. H. Jeong, and Y. S. Choi, “Comparison of the effects of normal saline versus Plasmalyte on acid-base balance during living donor kidney transplantation using the Stewart and base excess methods,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 2191–2196, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. H. Lavu, N. M. Sell, T. I. Carter et al., “The hyslar trial: a prospective randomized controlled trial of the use of a restrictive fluid regimen with 3% hypertonic saline versus lactated Ringers in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 260, no. 3, pp. 445–453, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  31. H. Liang, C.-X. Yang, H. Li, X.-J. Wen, Q.-L. Zhou, and M.-N. Gu, “The effects of preloading infusion with hydroxyethyl starch 200/0.5 or 130/0.4 solution on hypercoagulability and excessive platelet activation of patients with colon cancer,” Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 406–413, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. L. M. Löffel, F. C. Burkhard, J. Takala, and P. Y Wuethrich, “Impact of a potassium-enriched, chloride-depleted 5% glucose solution on gastrointestinal function after major abdominopelvic surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial,” Anesthesiology, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 678–689, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  33. A. Mahmood, P. Gosling, and R. K. Vohra, “Randomized clinical trial comparing the effects on renal function of hydroxyethyl starch or gelatine during aortic aneurysm surgery,” British Journal of Surgery, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 427–433, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. A. Mahmood, P. Gosling, R. Barclay, F. Kilvington, and R. Vohra, “Splanchnic microcirculation protection by hydroxyethyl starches during abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery,” European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 319–325, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. P. E. Marik, J. Iglesias, and B. Maini, “Gastric intramucosal pH changes after volume replacement with hydroxyethyl starch or crystalloid in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair,” Journal of Critical Care, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 51–55, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. Mishra, R. K. Pandey, A. Sharma et al., “Is perioperative administration of 5% dextrose effective in reducing the incidence of PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy?: a randomized control trial,” Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, vol. 40, pp. 7–10, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  37. M. P. Modi, K. S. Vora, G. P. Parikh et al., “A comparative study of impact of infusion of Ringer’s Lactate solution versus normal saline on acid-base balance and serum electrolytes during live related renal transplantation,” Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases & Transplantation, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 135–137, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  38. A. Mukhtar, F. Aboulfetouh, G. Obayah et al., “The safety of modern hydroxyethyl starch in living donor liver transplantation: a comparison with human albumin,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 924–930, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. C. M. O’Malley, R. J. Frumento, M. A. Hardy et al., “A randomized, double-blind comparison of lactated Ringer’s solution and 0.9% NaCl during renal transplantation,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 1518–1524, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  40. E. Potura, G. Lindner, P. Biesenbach et al., “An acetate-buffered balanced crystalloid versus 0.9% saline in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing cadaveric renal transplantation: a prospective randomized controlled trial,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 123–129, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  41. M. Ragaller, M. Muller, J. U. Bleyl et al., “Hemodynamic effects of hypertonic hydroxyethyl starch 6% solution and isotonic hydroxyethyl starch 6% solution after declamping during abdominal aortic aneurysm repair,” Shock, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 367–373, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  42. V. Rao, I. Bala, D. Jain, and N. Bharti, “Effect of intravenous dextrose administration on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” European Journal of Anaesthesiology, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 705–707, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. K. C. Rasmussen, P. I. Johansson, M. Højskov et al., “Hydroxyethyl starch reduces coagulation competence and increases blood loss during major surgery,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 259, no. 2, pp. 249–254, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. K. C. Rasmussen, M. Hoejskov, P. I. Johansson et al., “Coagulation competence for predicting perioperative hemorrhage in patients treated with lactated Ringer’s vs. Dextran--a randomized controlled trial,” BMC Anesthesiology, vol. 15, p. 178, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. K. C. Rasmussen, M. Hojskov, P. I. Johansson et al., “Impact of albumin on coagulation competence and hemorrhage during major surgery: a randomized controlled trial,” Medicine, vol. 95, no. 9, Article ID e2720, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. D. Rittoo, P. Gosling, C. Bonnici et al., “Splanchnic oxygenation in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and volume expansion with eloHAES,” Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 128–133, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. D. Rittoo, P. Gosling, M. H. Simms, S. R. G. Smith, and R. K. Vohra, “The effects of hydroxyethyl starch compared with gelofusine on activated endothelium and the systemic inflammatory response following aortic aneurysm repair,” European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 520–524, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. O. Sander, K. Reinhart, and A. Meier-Hellmann, “Equivalence of hydroxyethyl starch HES 130/0. 4 and HES 200/0. 5 for perioperative volume replacement in major gynaecological surgery,” Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1151–1158, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. A. J. Senagore, T. Emery, M. Luchtefeld, D. Kim, N. Dujovny, and R. Hoedema, “Fluid management for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective, randomized assessment of goal-directed administration of balanced salt solution or hetastarch coupled with an enhanced recovery program,” Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 1935–1940, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. P. Szturz, R. Kula, J. Tichy, J. Maca, J. Neiser, and P. Sevcik, “Individual goal-directed intraoperative fluid management of initially hypovolemic patients for elective major urological surgery,” Bratislava Medical Journal, vol. 115, no. 10, pp. 653–659, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. N. Vogt, U. Bothner, A. Brinkmann et al., “Peri-operative tolerance to large-dose 6% HES 200/0.5 in major urological procedures compared with 5% human albumin,” Anaesthesia, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 121–127, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  52. J. H. Waters, A. Gottlieb, P. Schoenwald, M. J. Popovich, J. Sprung, and D. R. Nelson, “Normal saline versus lactated Ringer’s solution for intraoperative fluid management in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: an outcome study,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 817–822, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. L. Weinberg, B. Pearce, R. Sullivan et al., “The effects of plasmalyte-148 vs. Hartmann’s solution during major liver resection: a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial,” Minerva Anestesiologica, vol. 81, no. 12, pp. 1288–1297, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  54. L. Weinberg, L. Harris, R. Bellomo et al., “Effects of intraoperative and early postoperative normal saline or Plasma-Lyte 148 on hyperkalaemia in deceased donor renal transplantation: a double-blind randomized trial,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 606–615, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. X.-Y. Yuan, C.-H. Zhang, Y.-L. He et al., “Is albumin administration beneficial in early stage of postoperative hypoalbuminemia following gastrointestinal surgery?: a prospective randomized controlled trial,” The American Journal of Surgery, vol. 196, no. 5, pp. 751–755, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. J. Zhang, H. Qiao, Z. He, Y. Wang, X. Che, and W. Liang, “Intraoperative fluid management in open gastrointestinal surgery: goal-directed versus restrictive,” Clinics, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 1149–1155, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. Q.-l. Zhu, Y.-x. Deng, B.-w. Yu, M.-h. Zheng, and J. Jin, “Acute hypervolemic infusion can improve splanchnic perfusion in elderly patients during laparoscopic colorectal surgery,” Medical Science Monitor, vol. 24, pp. 614–622, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. B. A. M. P. Besen, A. L. Gobatto, L. M. Melro et al., “Fluid and electrolyte overload in critically ill patients: an overview,” World Journal of Critical Care Medicine, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 116–129, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. S. Mitra and P. Khandelwal, “Are all colloids same? How to select the right colloid?” Indian J Anaesth, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 592–607, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  60. M. R. Edwards and M. P. W. Grocott, “Perioperative fluid and electrolyte therapy,” Miller’s Anesthesia, vol. 47, pp. 1480–1523, 2020. View at: Google Scholar
  61. E. M. Bulger, S. May, J. D. Kerby et al., “Out-of-hospital hypertonic resuscitation after traumatic hypovolemic shock,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 253, no. 3, pp. 431–441, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. E. Vahidi, Z. Naderpour, and M. Saeedi, “Hypertonic saline in the treatment of hemorrhagic shock,” Advanced Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 1, no. 1, p. e8, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  63. P. Caironi, G. Tognoni, S. Masson et al., “Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 370, no. 15, pp. 1412–1421, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. P. Kundra and S. Goswami, “Endothelial glycocalyx: role in body fluid homeostasis and fluid management,” Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 6–14, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. C. Y. Wu, K. C. Chan, Y. J. Cheng et al., “Effects of different types of fluid resuscitation for hemorrhagic shock on splanchnic organ microcirculation and renal reactive oxygen species formation,” Critical Care, vol. 19, p. 434, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. H. He, D. Liu, and C. Ince, “Colloids and the microcirculation,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 126, no. 5, pp. 1747–1754, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. J. J. Kolkman, P. J. Steverink, A. B. Groeneveld, and S. G. Meuwissen, “Characteristics of time-dependent PCO2 tonometry in the normal human stomach,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 669–675, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. R. Varga, L. Török, A. Szabó et al., “Effects of colloid solutions on ischemia-reperfusion-induced periosteal microcirculatory and inflammatory reactions: comparison of dextran, gelatin, and hydroxyethyl starch,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 2828–2837, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. G. Chen, G. You, Y. Wang et al., “Effects of synthetic colloids on oxidative stress and inflammatory response in hemorrhagic shock: comparison of hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4, hydroxyethyl starch 200/0.5, and succinylated gelatin,” Critical Care, vol. 17, no. 4, p. R141, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. K. C. Rasmussen, N. H. Secher, and T. Pedersen, “Effect of perioperative crystalloid or colloid fluid therapy on hemorrhage, coagulation competence, and outcome,” Medicine, vol. 95, no. 31, p. e4498, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. E. de Jonge and M. Levi, “Effects of different plasma substitutes on blood coagulation: a comparative review,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1261–1267, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. P. M. Odor, S. Bampoe, A. Dushianthan et al., “Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures: a Cochrane systematic review,” Perioper Med, vol. 7, p. 27, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. W. H. Self, M. W. Semler, J. P. Wanderer et al., “Balanced crystalloids versus saline in noncritically ill adults,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 9, pp. 819–828, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  74. C. Legendre, E. Thervet, B. Page, A. Percheron, L. H. Noël, and H. Kreis, “Hydroxyethylstarch and osmotic-nephrosis- like lesions in kidney transplantation,” The Lancet, vol. 342, no. 8865, pp. 248-249, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. R. Datta, R. Nair, A. Pandey, N. Kumar, and T. Sahoo, “Hydroxyeyhyl starch: controversies revisited,” Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 472–480, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. D. Annane, S. Siami, S. Jaber et al., “Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs. crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock,” Jama, vol. 310, no. 17, pp. 1809–1817, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. S. H. Qureshi, S. I. Rizvi, N. N. Patel, and G. J. Murphy, “Meta-analysis of colloidsversuscrystalloids in critically ill, trauma and surgical patients,” British Journal of Surgery, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 14–26, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. S. H. Kim, D.-H. Kim, E. Kim, H. J. Kim, and Y. S. Choi, “Does perioperative intravenous dextrose reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting? A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, vol. 14, pp. 2003–2011, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. T. Prien, N. Backhaus, F. Pelster, W. Pircher, H. Büe, and P. Lawin, “Effect of intraoperative fluid administration and colloid osmotic pressure on the formation of intestinal edema during gastrointestinal surgery,” Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 317–323, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. M. S. VandeHei, C. M. Papageorge, M. M. Murphy, and G. D. Kennedy, “The effect of perioperative fluid management on postoperative ileus in rectal cancer patients,” Surgery, vol. 161, no. 6, pp. 1628–1632, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Seechad Noonpradej and Osaree Akaraborworn. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views1599
Downloads459
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.