ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 325-329

Human albumin 4% versus hydroxyethyl starch 6% for fluid resuscitation in sepsis


Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Heba F Toulan
Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, 11566 Cairo
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1687-7934.189097

Rights and Permissions

Background Early fluid resuscitation is vital to patients with sepsis. However, the choice of fluid has been a hot topic of discussion. The objective of this study was to compare hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 6% (130/0.4) with albumin 4% as a resuscitation fluid in septic patients. Patients and methods In this prospective randomized study, 80 patients aged 20–60 years of both sexes with sepsis were assigned to receive either HES (130/0.4) in 0.9% saline or human albumin 4% as a resuscitation fluid. Mortality rate after 28 days, need for renal replacement therapy, and duration of ICU stay were compared between the two groups. Results The mortality rate in the albumin group (22.5%) was lower than in the HES 6% group (40%) with significant P value (0.033). Also, the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and length of ICU stay were significantly higher in the HES 6% group compared with the albumin group. Conclusion Use of human albumin 4% has a significant effect in reducing mortality rates in the ICU in patients with severe sepsis compared with HES 6%.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1944    
    Printed80    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded209    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal