Hextend and 7.5% hypertonic saline with Dextran are equivalent to Lactated Ringer's in a swine model of initial resuscitation of uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock.

Gordon M Riha, Nicholas R Kunio, Philbert Y Van, Gregory J Hamilton, Ross Anderson, Jerome A Differding, Martin A Schreiber
{"title":"Hextend and 7.5% hypertonic saline with Dextran are equivalent to Lactated Ringer's in a swine model of initial resuscitation of uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock.","authors":"Gordon M Riha,&nbsp;Nicholas R Kunio,&nbsp;Philbert Y Van,&nbsp;Gregory J Hamilton,&nbsp;Ross Anderson,&nbsp;Jerome A Differding,&nbsp;Martin A Schreiber","doi":"10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b1c","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal fluid strategy for the early treatment of trauma patients remains highly debated. Our objective was to determine the efficacy of an initial bolus of resuscitative fluids used in military and civilian settings on the physiologic response to uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock in a prospective, randomized, blinded animal study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty anesthetized swine underwent central venous and arterial catheterization followed by celiotomy. Grade V liver injury was performed, followed by 30 minutes of uncontrolled hemorrhage. Then, liver packing was completed, and fluid resuscitation was initiated over 12 minutes with 2 L normal saline (NS), 2 L Lactated Ringer's (LR), 250 mL 7.5% hypertonic saline with 3% Dextran (HTS), 500 mL Hextend (HEX), or no fluid (NF). Animals were monitored for 2 hours postinjury. Blood loss after initial hemorrhage, mean arterial pressure (MAP), tissue oxygen saturation (StO2), hematocrit, pH, base excess, and lactate were measured at baseline, 1 hour, and 2 hours.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NF group had less post-treatment blood loss compared with other groups. MAP and StO2 for HEX, HTS, and LR at 1 hour and 2 hours were similar and higher than NF. MAP and StO2 did not differ between NS and NF, but NS resulted in decreased pH and base excess.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Withholding resuscitative fluid results in the least amount of posttreatment blood loss. In clinically used volumes, HEX and HTS are equivalent to LR with regard to physiologic outcomes and superior to NF. NS did not provide a measurable improvement in outcome compared with NF and resulted in increased acidosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":48894,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b1c","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3182367b1c","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

Background: The optimal fluid strategy for the early treatment of trauma patients remains highly debated. Our objective was to determine the efficacy of an initial bolus of resuscitative fluids used in military and civilian settings on the physiologic response to uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock in a prospective, randomized, blinded animal study.

Methods: Fifty anesthetized swine underwent central venous and arterial catheterization followed by celiotomy. Grade V liver injury was performed, followed by 30 minutes of uncontrolled hemorrhage. Then, liver packing was completed, and fluid resuscitation was initiated over 12 minutes with 2 L normal saline (NS), 2 L Lactated Ringer's (LR), 250 mL 7.5% hypertonic saline with 3% Dextran (HTS), 500 mL Hextend (HEX), or no fluid (NF). Animals were monitored for 2 hours postinjury. Blood loss after initial hemorrhage, mean arterial pressure (MAP), tissue oxygen saturation (StO2), hematocrit, pH, base excess, and lactate were measured at baseline, 1 hour, and 2 hours.

Results: NF group had less post-treatment blood loss compared with other groups. MAP and StO2 for HEX, HTS, and LR at 1 hour and 2 hours were similar and higher than NF. MAP and StO2 did not differ between NS and NF, but NS resulted in decreased pH and base excess.

Conclusions: Withholding resuscitative fluid results in the least amount of posttreatment blood loss. In clinically used volumes, HEX and HTS are equivalent to LR with regard to physiologic outcomes and superior to NF. NS did not provide a measurable improvement in outcome compared with NF and resulted in increased acidosis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在失血性休克初始复苏猪模型中,Hextend和7.5%高渗盐水加右旋糖酐与乳酸林格等效。
背景:创伤患者早期治疗的最佳液体策略仍然存在高度争议。我们的目的是在一项前瞻性、随机、盲法的动物研究中,确定在军事和民用环境中使用的初始复苏液体对不受控制的失血性休克的生理反应的功效。方法:50头猪麻醉后行中心静脉和动脉导管置管,然后切开腹腔。进行了V级肝损伤,随后30分钟不受控制的出血。然后,完成肝脏填塞,并在12分钟内开始液体复苏,使用2l生理盐水(NS), 2l乳酸林格氏盐水(LR), 250 mL 7.5%高渗盐水(含3%葡聚糖)(HTS), 500 mL Hextend (HEX)或无液体(NF)。动物损伤后监测2小时。在基线、1小时和2小时测量初次出血后的失血量、平均动脉压(MAP)、组织氧饱和度(StO2)、血细胞比容、pH、碱过量和乳酸。结果:NF组治疗后出血量明显少于其他各组。HEX、HTS和LR在1小时和2小时的MAP和StO2相似且高于NF。MAP和StO2在NS和NF之间没有差异,但NS导致pH降低和碱过量。结论:保留复苏液可减少术后出血量。在临床使用的体积中,HEX和HTS在生理结果方面与LR相当,优于NF。与NF相比,NS没有提供可测量的结果改善,并导致酸中毒增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-EMERGENCY MEDICINE
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊最新文献
Future of ultrasound wound therapy: Technologies, devices, science and clinical outcomes The use of amniotic membrane in healing excisional debridement of sea urchin stings Diagnostic diligence in trauma and injury care through forensic pathology The incidence of chronic pain following tibial diaphyseal fracture. Acute compartment syndrome in patients on long-term anticoagulation therapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1