-
Kidney International Jul 2017In various human diseases, an increase in capillary permeability to proteins leads to the loss of protein-rich fluid from the intravascular to the interstitial space.... (Review)
Review
In various human diseases, an increase in capillary permeability to proteins leads to the loss of protein-rich fluid from the intravascular to the interstitial space. Although sepsis is the disease most commonly associated with this phenomenon, many other diseases can lead to a "sepsis-like" syndrome with manifestations of diffuse pitting edema, exudative serous cavity effusions, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, hypotension, and, in some cases, hypovolemic shock with multiple-organ failure. The term capillary leak syndrome has been used to describe this constellation of disease manifestations associated with an increased capillary permeability to proteins. Diseases other than sepsis that can result in capillary leak syndrome include the idiopathic systemic capillary leak syndrome or Clarkson's disease, engraftment syndrome, differentiation syndrome, the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, viral hemorrhagic fevers, autoimmune diseases, snakebite envenomation, and ricin poisoning. Drugs including some interleukins, some monoclonal antibodies, and gemcitabine can also cause capillary leak syndrome. Acute kidney injury is commonly seen in all of these diseases. In addition to hypotension, cytokines are likely to be important in the pathophysiology of acute kidney injury in capillary leak syndrome. Fluid management is a critical part of the treatment of capillary leak syndrome; hypovolemia and hypotension can cause organ injury, whereas capillary leakage of administered fluid can worsen organ edema leading to progressive organ injury. The purpose of this article is to discuss the diseases other than sepsis that produce capillary leak and review their collective pathophysiology and treatment.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Animals; Capillaries; Capillary Leak Syndrome; Capillary Permeability; Diagnosis, Differential; Fluid Therapy; Hemodynamics; Humans; Plasma Substitutes; Pleural Effusion; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Sepsis; Sodium Potassium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28318633
DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2016.11.029 -
Kidney International Jul 2019Fluid therapy, which is provided to restore and maintain tissue perfusion, is part of routine management for almost all critically ill patients. However, because either... (Review)
Review
Fluid therapy, which is provided to restore and maintain tissue perfusion, is part of routine management for almost all critically ill patients. However, because either too much or too little fluid can have a negative impact on patient outcomes, fluid administration must be titrated carefully for each patient. The "salvage, optimization, stabilization, de-escalation" (SOSD) mnemonic should be used as a general guide to fluid resuscitation, and fluid administration should be adapted according to the course of the disease. In the initial salvage phase, lifesaving fluid should be administered generously. Once hemodynamic monitoring is available, fluid administration should be optimized by determining the patient's fluid status and the need for further fluid. This determination can be difficult, however; clinical indicators of hypovolemia, such as heart rate, blood pressure, and urine output, may not detect early hypovolemia, and edema is a late sign of fluid overload. Dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness such as pulse pressure or stroke volume variation can be used in only a small percentage of critically ill patients, and thus a fluid challenge technique is most frequently used to assess ongoing fluid requirements. Once a patient has been stabilized, efforts should start to concentrate on removing excess fluid. Which fluid should be used remains a matter of some debate. Crystalloid solutions are cheaper than colloid solutions, but colloid solutions remain in the intravascular space for a longer period, making edema less likely. Thus crystalloids and colloids should be used together, especially in patients likely to require large fluid volumes. Human albumin is a natural colloid and may have beneficial effects in patients with sepsis in addition to its volume effects. Fluids should be prescribed as are other medications, taking into account individual patient factors, disease processes, and other treatments.
Topics: Colloids; Critical Illness; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Hypovolemia; Isotonic Solutions; Monitoring, Physiologic; Plasma Substitutes; Resuscitation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30926137
DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2018.11.047 -
Bioactive Materials Dec 2017Bone grafts have been predominated used to treat bone defects, delayed union or non-union, and spinal fusion in orthopaedic clinically for a period of time, despite the... (Review)
Review
Bone grafts have been predominated used to treat bone defects, delayed union or non-union, and spinal fusion in orthopaedic clinically for a period of time, despite the emergency of synthetic bone graft substitutes. Nevertheless, the integration of allogeneic grafts and synthetic substitutes with host bone was found jeopardized in long-term follow-up studies. Hence, the enhancement of osteointegration of these grafts and substitutes with host bone is considerably important. To address this problem, addition of various growth factors, such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), parathyroid hormone (PTH) and platelet rich plasma (PRP), into structural allografts and synthetic substitutes have been considered. Although clinical applications of these factors have exhibited good bone formation, their further application was limited due to high cost and potential adverse side effects. Alternatively, bioinorganic ions such as magnesium, strontium and zinc are considered as alternative of osteogenic biological factors. Hence, this paper aims to review the currently available bone grafts and bone substitutes as well as the biological and bio-inorganic factors for the treatments of bone defect.
PubMed: 29744432
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2017.05.007 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2021Surgical reconstruction in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures has proven to be a highly effective technique that usually provides satisfactory results. However,... (Review)
Review
Surgical reconstruction in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures has proven to be a highly effective technique that usually provides satisfactory results. However, despite the majority of patients recovering their function after this procedure, ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is still imperfect. To improve these results, various biological augmentation (BA) techniques have been employed mostly in animal models. They include: (1) growth factors (bone morphogenetic protein, epidermal growth factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, basic fibroblast growth factor, transforming growth factor-β, hepatocyte growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and platelet concentrates such as platelet-rich plasma, fibrin clot, and autologous conditioned serum), (2) mesenchymal stem cells, (3) autologous tissue, (4) various pharmaceuticals (matrix metalloproteinase-inhibitor alpha-2-macroglobulin bisphosphonates), (5) biophysical/environmental methods (hyperbaric oxygen, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, extracorporeal shockwave therapy), (6) biomaterials (fixation methods, biological coatings, biosynthetic bone substitutes, osteoconductive materials), and (7) gene therapy. All of them have shown good results in experimental studies; however, the clinical studies on BA published so far are highly heterogeneous and have a low degree of evidence. The most widely used technique to date is platelet-rich plasma. My position is that orthopedic surgeons must be very cautious when considering using PRP or other BA methods in ACLR.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Bone Substitutes; Genetic Therapy; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 34830448
DOI: 10.3390/ijms222212566 -
Annals of Hepatology 2020Infections are a frequent complication and a major cause of death among patients with cirrhosis. The important impact of infections in general and especially spontaneous... (Review)
Review
Infections are a frequent complication and a major cause of death among patients with cirrhosis. The important impact of infections in general and especially spontaneous bacterial peritonitis on the course of disease and prognosis of patients with cirrhosis has been recognized for many years. Nevertheless, such importance has recently increased due to the comprehension of infection as one of the most prominent risk factors for patients to develop acute-on-chronic liver failure. Furthermore, the issue of infections in cirrhosis is a focus of increasing attention because of the spreading of multidrug resistant bacteria, which is an emerging concern among physicians assisting patients with cirrhosis. In the present paper, we will review the current epidemiology of infections in patients with cirrhosis and particularly that of infections caused by resistant bacteria, demonstrating the relevance of the subject. Besides, we will discuss the current recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of different kinds of infections, including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and we will highlight the importance of knowing local microbiological profiles and choosing empirical antibiotic therapy wisely. Finally, we will debate the existing evidences regarding the role of volume expansion with albumin in patients with cirrhosis and extraperitoneal infections, and that of antibiotic prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.
Topics: Albumins; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Peritonitis; Plasma Substitutes; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32533951
DOI: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.04.010 -
Annals of Burns and Fire Disasters Sep 2018The goal of this study is to evaluate an alternative to tissue grafts and cutaneous substitutes. Five hundred and seventeen burn patients were treated between February...
The goal of this study is to evaluate an alternative to tissue grafts and cutaneous substitutes. Five hundred and seventeen burn patients were treated between February 2012 and June 2016: 381 of them benefited from cell therapy. 1 to 4 cm2 of autologous healthy total skin graft was dissected into epidermis, dermis and hypodermis, and then separately transformed into three cell-rich suspensions: some of these suspensions were eclectically chosen and associated first with platelet-rich plasma and thereafter with cryoprecipitate of plasma. Also, sequential seedings were performed every 2 days. The day after seeding, irrigation with antioxidants, protectors and healing stimulants was carried out twice daily. Deep 2nd degree burns healed in 5 to 10 days, while for 3rd degree burns results were achieved in 20 days for small areas and 50 days, on average, for larger areas. This reproducible technique could find its place in the therapeutic arsenal against burns.
PubMed: 30863256
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.
Topics: Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Renal Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 30073665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub7 -
Anesthesiology Jul 2015
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Female; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Intraoperative Care; Male; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 26510202
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000703 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2022Dextran, a renewable hydrophilic polysaccharide, is nontoxic, highly stable but intrinsically biodegradable. The α-1, 6 glycosidic bonds in dextran are attacked by... (Review)
Review
Dextran, a renewable hydrophilic polysaccharide, is nontoxic, highly stable but intrinsically biodegradable. The α-1, 6 glycosidic bonds in dextran are attacked by dextranase (E.C. 3.2.1.11) which is an inducible enzyme. Dextranase finds many applications such as, in sugar industry, in the production of human plasma substitutes, and for the treatment and prevention of dental plaque. Currently, dextranases are obtained from terrestrial fungi which have longer duration for production but not very tolerant to environmental conditions and have safety concerns. Marine bacteria have been proposed as an alternative source of these enzymes and can provide prospects to overcome these issues. Indeed, marine bacterial dextranases are reportedly more effective and suitable for dental caries prevention and treatment. Here, we focused on properties of dextran, properties of dextran-hydrolyzing enzymes, particularly from marine sources and the biochemical features of these enzymes. Lastly the potential use of these marine bacterial dextranase to remove dental plaque has been discussed. The review covers dextranase-producing bacteria isolated from shrimp, fish, algae, sea slit, and sea water, as well as from macro- and micro fungi and other microorganisms. It is common knowledge that dextranase is used in the sugar industry; produced as a result of hydrolysis by dextranase and have prebiotic properties which influence the consistency and texture of food products. In medicine, dextranases are used to make blood substitutes. In addition, dextranase is used to produce low molecular weight dextran and cytotoxic dextran. Furthermore, dextranase is used to enhance antibiotic activity in endocarditis. It has been established that dextranase from marine bacteria is the most preferable for removing plaque, as it has a high enzymatic activity. This study lays the groundwork for the future design and development of different oral care products, based on enzymes derived from marine bacteria.
Topics: Animals; Bacteria; Dental Caries; Dental Plaque; Dextranase; Dextrans; Fungi; Humans; Sugars
PubMed: 36080300
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27175533 -
Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 2018Fluid therapy is one of the most important treatments in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) as both hypo- and hypervolaemia can cause harm. The main goals of... (Review)
Review
Fluid therapy is one of the most important treatments in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) as both hypo- and hypervolaemia can cause harm. The main goals of fluid therapy for patients with TBI are to optimize cerebral perfusion and to maintain adequate cerebral oxygenation. The avoidance of cerebral oedema is clearly essential. The current weight of evidence in the published literature suggests that albumin therapy is harmful and plasma substitutes have failed to demonstrate superiority over crystalloids solutions. Crystalloids are the most common fluids administered in patients with TBI. However, differences in their composition may affect coagulation and plasma tonicity and acid-base homeostasis. The choice of the ideal crystalloid fluid in TBI should be made based on tonicity, type of buffer used and volume status. Hypotonic fluids buffered with substances altering blood coagulation should be avoided in clinical practice. The prescriber remains faced with choices about the tonicity and pH buffering capability of fluid therapy, which we review here.
Topics: Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Plasma Substitutes
PubMed: 29165777
DOI: 10.5603/AIT.a2017.0067