English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:   Despite decades of investigation, the balance of clinical risks and benefits of fluid supplementation with starch remain unresolved. Patient-centered outcomes have not been well explored in a “real-world” trial in cardiac surgery.Objective:   We sought to compare a starch-based fluid strategy with a saline-based fluid strategy in the cardiac surgery patient.Design:   A pragmatic blinded randomized controlled trial comparing starch-based with saline-based fluid strategy.Setting:   A large tertiary academic center in London Ontario between September 2009 and February 2011.Participants:   Patients undergoing planned, isolated coronary revascularization.Measurements:   Serum creatinine and patient weight were measured daily postoperatively.Methods:   Patients were randomized to receive 6% hydroxyethyl starch (Voluven) or saline for perioperative fluid requirements. Fluid administration was not protocolized. Co-primary outcomes were incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and maximum postoperative weight gain. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, transfusion, inotropic and ventilator support, and fluid utilization.Results:   The study was prematurely terminated due to resource limitations. A total of 69 patients (19% female, mean age = 65) were randomized. Using RIFLE criteria for AKI, “risk” occurred in 12 patients in each group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5-1.9; P = 1.00), whereas “injury” occurred in 7 of 35 (20%) and 3 of 34 (9%) of patients in the starch and saline groups, respectively (RR = 2.3; 95% CI = 0.6-8.1; P = .31). Maximum weight gain, bleeding and blood product usage, and overall fluid requirement were similar between groups.Limitations:   The study had to be prematurely terminated due to resource limitations which led to a small sample size which was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in the primary outcomes.Conclusions:   This pragmatic double-blinded randomized controlled trial revealed a number of interesting hypothesis-generating trends and confirmed the feasibility of undertaking a logistically complex trial in a pragmatic fashion.

Starch or Saline After Cardiac Surgery: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial