• J Trauma · Nov 2011

    Comparative Study

    Intracorporeal use of advanced local hemostatics in a damage control swine model of grade IV liver injury.

    • Kenji Inaba, Peter Rhee, Pedro G Teixeira, Galinos Barmparas, Bradley Putty, Bernardino C Branco, Stephen Cohn, and Demetrios Demetriades.
    • Division of Trauma Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. kinaba@surgery.usc.edu
    • J Trauma. 2011 Nov 1;71(5):1312-8.

    BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of zeolite- and chitosan-based local hemostatic agents for the control of intracorporeal bleeding in a damage control swine model of grade IV liver injury.MethodsAnesthetized pigs (weight, 40 kg) had a controlled 35% total blood volume bleed from the right jugular vein. A laparotomy was performed and the animals were cooled to 35°C. Ringer's lactate was titrated to achieve a three to one blood withdrawal resuscitation. The liver was injured with a standardized 10 cm × 3 cm avulsion. After 2 minutes of uncontrolled hemorrhage, the animals were randomized to application of gauze control (GC, n = 11), Celox (CX, n = 11) (5AM Medical, Newport, OR), or QuikClot ACS (QC, n = 11) (7-Medica, Wallington, CT) and packed in a standardized manner. At 10 minutes, the packs were removed to calculate amount of shed blood. The animals then underwent damage control closure with packing in place. Forty-eight hours after initial damage control packing, the animals were returned to the operating room for pack removal and killing. The need for repacking of the liver was assessed and tissue samples were collected from the liver edge and adjacent small bowel for histopathology.ResultsThere was no difference in the amount of uncontrolled bleeding at 2 minutes (GC: 4.0 mL/kg ± 0.4 mL/kg, CX: 3.5 mL/kg ± 0.5 mL/kg, QC: 4.0 mL/kg ± 0.6 mL/kg; one-way analysis of variance: p = 0.715). Compared with GCs, the blood loss at 10 minutes was significantly lower in the CX and QC arms (GC: 8.3 mL/kg ± 0.9 mL/kg, CX: 3.7 mL/kg ± 0.7 mL/kg, QC: 4.6 mL/kg ± 0.8 mL/kg; one-way analysis of variance: p = 0.001). A total of 27.3% of control animals died compared with 18.2% of CX and 0.0% of QC. All GC and QC animals required repacking, compared with one (9.1%) of those in the CX arm. There was no difference between groups in the extent of necrosis.ConclusionCelox and QuikClot ACS(+) are effective adjuncts to standard intracavitary damage control packing for the control of bleeding. Celox provided durable control allowing packing removal at the time of take-back laparotomy. Further evaluation of their long-term effects is warranted.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.