Safety of gelatin for volume resuscitation—a systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeGelatin is frequently used as a volume expander in critical care. Our goal was to investigate its safety.MethodsSystematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in patients receiving gelatin for resuscitation in comparison to albumin or crystalloids.ResultsWe identified 40 RCTs published between 1976 and 2010 with 3,275 patients. Median sample size in the gelatin groups was 15 patients (range 10–249). Median gelatin dose was 17 ml/kg (range 6–57 ml/kg). In 32 RCTs (n = 1,946/3,275, 59 % of all patients), the study period was ≤24.0 h. Twenty-nine RCTs (n = 2,001) investigated elective surgical patients, mostly undergoing cardiac surgery (18 RCTs, n = 819). Three RCTs (n = 723) investigated critically ill adults. Two RCTs (n = 59) were performed in emergency room patients, and six RCTs (n = 492) were performed in neonates or children. No study was adequately powered to investigate the frequency of patient-important outcomes. Risks were not statistically significantly different for mortality (RR 1.12, 95 % confidence interval, 0.87–1.44) and exposure to allogeneic transfusion (RR 1.28, 0.89–1.83). On account of only few included studies and the small number of patients, subgroup analyses (high vs. low dose, >24 h vs. shorter periods, and critically ill patients vs. others) were uninformative. Only three RCTs reported the occurrence of acute renal failure.ConclusionDespite over 60 years of clinical practice, the safety and efficacy of gelatin cannot be reliably assessed in at least some settings in which it is currently used. We suggest the need to investigate and establish such safety.