• K Reinhart, F M Brunkhorst, C Engel, F Bloos, A Meier-Hellmann, M Ragaller, N Weiler, O Moerer, M Gruendling, M Oppert, S Grond, D Olthoff, U Jaschinski, S John, R Rossaint, T Welte, M Schaefer, P Kern, E Kuhnt, M Kiehntopf, T Deufel, C Hartog, H Gerlach, F Stüber, H-D Volk, M Quintel, M Loeffler, and Deutsche Studiengruppe Kompetenznetzwerk Sepsis (SepNet).
• Anaesthesist. 2008 Jul 1; 57 (7): 723-8.

AbstractIn the commentary by Zander et al. the authors appear concerned about the methods and results of our, at that time, unpublished sepsis trial evaluating hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and insulin therapy. Unfortunately, the authors' concerns are based on false assumptions about the design, conduct and modes of action of the compounds under investigation. For instance, in our study the HES solution was not used for maintenance of daily fluid requirements, so that the assumption of the authors that this colloid was used "exclusively" is wrong. Moreover, the manufacturer of Hemohes, the HES product we used, gives no cut-off value for creatinine, thus the assumption that this cut-off value was "doubled" in our study is also incorrect. Other claims by the authors such as that lactated solutions cause elevated lactate levels, iatrogenic hyperglycemia and increase O(2) consumption are unfounded. There is no randomized controlled trial supporting such a claim - this claim is neither consistent with our study data nor with any credible published sepsis guidelines or with routine practice worldwide. We fully support open scientific debate. Our study methods and results have now been published after a strict peer-reviewing process and this data is now open to critical and constructive reviewing. However, in our opinion this premature action based on wrong assumptions and containing comments by representatives of pharmaceutical companies does not contribute to a serious, unbiased scientific discourse.

24 keywords...

hide…