Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 1:03 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-29 @ 2:00 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT03420261
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2019-02-21
First Post:
2017-09-05
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Hemostasis Evolution During Fluid Loading in Abdominal Surgery. Effects of Fluid Choice: Saline Versus Hydroxyethyl Starch (HAEMO Study)
Sponsor:
University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Hemostasis Evolution During Fluid Loading in Abdominal Surgery. Effects of Fluid Choice: Saline Versus Hydroxyethyl Starch (HAEMO Study, an Ancillary Study of FLASH Trial)
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2019-02
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
HAEMO
Brief Summary:
The primary purpose of the study is to evaluate whether the type of fluid (0.9% saline or 6% Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4) in the context of an individualized goal-directed fluid therapy is associated with a difference in morbidity and mortality within the first 14 days in patients at moderate-to-high risk of postoperative complications after abdominal surgery.
Further investigation include the analysis of hemostasis modifications according to the fluid group during the first 7 days after abdominal surgery.
Further investigation include the analysis of hemostasis modifications according to the fluid group during the first 7 days after abdominal surgery.
Detailed Description:
Fluid administration is the mainstay treatment for suspected hypovolemia during surgery, but the effects of different crystalloid and colloid solutions on outcome remain poorly explored in surgical patients.
Two recent international multicenter studies (6S and CHEST studies) have shown that, compared to crystalloid solutions, the use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) could be responsible for higher morbidity, especially renal failure, and mortality in ICU patients, thus leading to a recent restriction of their range of indications.
In contrast, in surgical patients, recent meta-analyses have concluded on the absence of difference in terms of mortality and postoperative renal failure between crystalloids and latest generation HES. Excessive fluid administration during surgery is associated with increased risk of postoperative morbidity, including renal dysfunction and mortality. It has been suggested that, compared with the volume-restoring effects of colloids, crystalloid use may require the administration of higher fluid volumes, which may contribute to poorer outcomes. In the surgical context, clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that individualized goal-direct fluid administration can reduce postoperative morbidity. Although most GDT studies have used colloid solutions for fluid loading, the effects of the type of fluids are currently unknown and crystalloids are proposed for first-line therapy.
Moreover conflicting results on hemostatic effects of HES have been reported. HES have been associated with increased bleeding volume and transfusion requirements, especially in the ICU setting in septic patients. Perioperative use of HES was not associated with such findings. Biological effects of HES on hemostasis has barely been investigated and only by diluting plasma of healthy donors with HES.
The proposed Haemo multicenter study will be conducted to assess if the use of HES or crystalloid solutions during an individualized GDT contribute to biological hemostatic differences in patients at moderate-to-high risk of postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. As these fluids are widely used during surgery and because of current concerns about the risks related to the use of HES-based products in ICU patients, the trial will provide important data to clinicians involved in perioperative care and hemostasis.
Two recent international multicenter studies (6S and CHEST studies) have shown that, compared to crystalloid solutions, the use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) could be responsible for higher morbidity, especially renal failure, and mortality in ICU patients, thus leading to a recent restriction of their range of indications.
In contrast, in surgical patients, recent meta-analyses have concluded on the absence of difference in terms of mortality and postoperative renal failure between crystalloids and latest generation HES. Excessive fluid administration during surgery is associated with increased risk of postoperative morbidity, including renal dysfunction and mortality. It has been suggested that, compared with the volume-restoring effects of colloids, crystalloid use may require the administration of higher fluid volumes, which may contribute to poorer outcomes. In the surgical context, clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that individualized goal-direct fluid administration can reduce postoperative morbidity. Although most GDT studies have used colloid solutions for fluid loading, the effects of the type of fluids are currently unknown and crystalloids are proposed for first-line therapy.
Moreover conflicting results on hemostatic effects of HES have been reported. HES have been associated with increased bleeding volume and transfusion requirements, especially in the ICU setting in septic patients. Perioperative use of HES was not associated with such findings. Biological effects of HES on hemostasis has barely been investigated and only by diluting plasma of healthy donors with HES.
The proposed Haemo multicenter study will be conducted to assess if the use of HES or crystalloid solutions during an individualized GDT contribute to biological hemostatic differences in patients at moderate-to-high risk of postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. As these fluids are widely used during surgery and because of current concerns about the risks related to the use of HES-based products in ICU patients, the trial will provide important data to clinicians involved in perioperative care and hemostasis.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
Secondary ID Infos
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-005578-84 | OTHER | 2014-005578-84 | View |