• Brian Gegel, James Burgert, Brian Cooley, Jacob MacGregor, Jules Myers, Sean Calder, Ralph Luellen, Michael Loughren, and Don Johnson.
• US Army Graduate Program in Anesthesia, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam, Houston, Texas 78234-6130, USA.
• J. Surg. Res. 2010 Nov 1;164(1):e125-9.

BackgroundHemorrhage is the second leading cause of death in civilian trauma and the leading cause of preventable death in military trauma. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of three hemostatic agents: BleedArrest, TraumaDex, and Celox.Materials And MethodsThis was a prospective, experimental study using male Yorkshire swine. The pigs (n = 5 per group) were randomly assigned to one of the following: BleedArrest, TraumaDex, Celox, or control. To simulate a trauma injury, the investigators generated a complex groin injury with transection of the femoral artery and vein in all pigs. After 1 min of uncontrolled hemorrhage, one of the hemostatic agents 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 min of direct manual pressure was applied to the wound followed by a standard pressure dressing. After 30 min, dressings were removed, and the amount of bleeding was determined.ResultsThere were significant differences between the BleedArrest (mean = 21.2, SD ± 36.6 mL) TraumaDex (mean = 68, SD ± 103.5 mL) and Celox (mean = 18.l6, SD ± 41.6 mL) groups compared with Control group (mean = 230, SD ± 154 mL) (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant difference between BleedArrest, TraumaDex, and Celox groups (P = 0.478).ConclusionsBleedArrest, Celox, and TraumaDex were statistically and clinically superior at controlling hemorrhage compared with the standard pressure dressing in the control group.Published by Elsevier Inc.

19 keywords...

hide…