Key result
Gelofusine and Voluven as priming fluids in cardiopulmonary bypass showed no significant difference in the amount of fluid replacement needed, though Gelofusine led to higher intraocular pressure.
Why the study?
Does Voluven compared to Gelofusine as priming fluid reduce the amount of fluid replacement needed in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
RCT
Double-blind
Does Voluven compared to Gelofusine as priming fluid reduce the amount of fluid replacement needed in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
While both Voluven and Gelofusine required similar fluid replacement during and after CABG, Voluven resulted in a lower increase in intraocular pressure, suggesting better maintenance of plasma oncotic pressure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Either priming fluid suffices for volume needs in CPB; extends RCT data on differential IOP effects.
Yap et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery bypass grafting. Gelofusine vs. Voluven was evaluated on Amount of fluid replacement needed during and post-cardiopulmonary bypass. Gelofusine and Voluven as priming fluids in cardiopulmonary bypass showed no significant difference in the amount of fluid replacement needed, though Gelofusine led to higher intraocular pressure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: