Colloid vs Crystalloid

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    COLLOID OR CRYSTALLOID FOR GOAL DIRECTED FLUID THERAPY IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING ELECTIVE COLORECTAL SURGERY: A RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND CONTROLLED TRIAL.

  • IRAS ID

    10519

  • Contact name

    Jonathan Wilson

  • Sponsor organisation

    York Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

  • Eudract number

    2009-013872-29

  • ISRCTN Number

    N/A

  • Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

    N/A

  • Research summary

    A reasonable amount of evidence now exists to support the technique of optimising a patient??s heart function witflud during major surgery, and that this leads to reduced complications and shorter hospital length of stay. However it remains unclear as to exactly how mucflud a patient should receive, and what the best type oflud is, that is crystalloid or colloid. Studies to date have shown that large amounts of normal saline (a crystalloid) may be harmful, and colloids may have a theoretical advantage in that they reduce the amount oflud a patient receives, and may reduce the inflammation response of surgery which may reduce post operative complications. At the present time many people give differing amounts and types oflud to people undergoing major surgery. We propose to optimise patients using 2 different types oflud, Hartmann's solution (a crystalloid) and Volulyte (a colloid) using a monitor that assess a patientflud needs. Patients will be selected as eligible for recruitment if they are having elective colorectal surgery, and also have a low anaerobic threshold after Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). This is a measure of a patient's fitness. The potential benefits of receiving colloid are that it may reduce complications after surgery, and shorten the stay in Hospital. Funding for this study is by an unrestricted grant from a major company that makeflud products.

  • REC name

    Yorkshire & The Humber - Leeds West Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    09/H1307/77

  • Date of REC Opinion

    8 Sep 2009

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion