• Brian T Gegel, James M Burgert, Cheryl Lockhart, Robert Austin, Alejandro Davila, Jacob Deeds, Lonnie Hodges, Andrew Hover, John Roy, Glenn Simpson, Stephen Weaver, William Wolfe, and Don Johnson.
• Brooke Army Medical Center, US Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia Nursing, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA. Brian.Gegel@amedd.army.mil
• AANA J. 2010 Apr 1;78(2):115-20.

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 hemostatic agents, chitosan-based Celox and the biopolymeric, microporous particles TraumaDEX, with a control group in a porcine model of hemorrhage. The animals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: Celox (n = 5), TraumaDEX (n = 5), or a standard pressure dressing alone (n = 5). To simulate a battlefield injury, the investigators generated a compound groin injury with transection of the femoral artery and vein in 15 pigs. After 1 minute of uncontrolled hemorrhage, Celox or TraumaDEX was poured into the wound, followed by standard wound packing. The control group underwent the same procedures with the exception of the hemostatic agents. In all groups, 5 minutes of direct manual pressure was applied to the wound, followed by a standard pressure dressing (3M Coban). After 30 minutes, dressings were removed, and the amount of bleeding was measured. There were statistically significant differences in bleeding between Celox and control (P = .01) and between TraumaDEX and control (P = .038), but no statistically significant difference in bleeding between Celox and TraumaDEX (P = .478). Celox and TraumaDEX may be effective hemostatic agents for use in civilian and military trauma.

15 keywords...

hide…