Perioperative Fluid Therapy With Tetrastarch and Gelatin in Cardiac Surgery—A Prospective Sequential Analysis*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine clinical outcomes of synthetic colloids, tetrastarch, and gelatin, used before and after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Fifty-bed cardiac ICU. PATIENTS: Six thousand four hundred seventy-eight consecutive patients with cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Fluid therapy in the operating room and on the ICU directed at preset hemodynamic goals: 1) hydroxyethyl starch (predominantly 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4) in 2004-2006, n = 2,137; 2) 4% gelatin in 2006-2008, n = 2,324; and 3) only crystalloids in 2008-2010, n = 2,017. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Renal replacement therapy was more common during periods when patients received synthetic colloids compared to only crystalloids. Risk of renal replacement therapy was greater after hydroxyethyl starch (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.47-3.60) and gelatin (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.84-4.16; both p < 0.001) compared to crystalloid. Propensity score stratification confirmed greater use of renal replacement therapy in the hydroxyethyl starch and gelatin periods compared to the crystalloid period (odds ratio, 1.46 [1.08, 1.97]; p = 0.013 and odds ratio, 1.72 [1.33, 2.24]; p < 0.001, respectively). Time to vasopressor cessation, normalization of serum lactate, and mean arterial pressure did not differ among groups. Total fluid requirement was 163 mL/kg in the hydroxyethyl starch period, 207 mL/kg in the gelatin period, and 224 mL/kg in the crystalloid period. Fluid intake was higher in the crystalloid group only during the first 20 hours. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac surgery patients, fluid therapy with perioperative administration of synthetic colloids carries a high risk of renal replacement therapy and is not more effective than treating with only crystalloids.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".