• Chitra N Sambasivan, S David Cho, Karen A Zink, Jerome A Differding, and Martin A Schreiber.
• Department of Surgery, Trauma/Critical Care Section, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
• Am. J. Surg. 2009 May 1;197(5):576-80; discussion 580.

BackgroundThis study compared the efficacy of 3 hemostatic dressings in a severe groin injury model in swine.MethodsTwenty-three swine received TraumaStat (OreMedix, Lebanon, OR), Chitoflex (HemCon, Inc., Portland, OR), or standard gauze for hemostasis. Complete femoral vessel transections were followed by 30 seconds of uncontrolled hemorrhage. The groin was packed with the randomized dressing followed by 30 seconds of compression. Resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution commenced immediately postcompression to the preinjury mean arterial blood pressure. Hemostasis failure was defined as blood pooling outside the wound. Animals were monitored and maintained at the preinjury mean arterial pressure for 120 minutes, culminating with euthanization.ResultsThere were no differences in baseline values between groups. TraumaStat resulted in less hemostasis failure (P < .05), decreased postcompression blood loss (P < .05), and decreased fluid requirement (P < .05). No significant difference in mortality was seen between groups. There were no differences between standard gauze and Chitoflex with respect to dressing failure, posttreatment blood loss, or fluid resuscitation.ConclusionsTraumaStat performed significantly better than Chitoflex and standard gauze in controlling hemorrhage from a severe groin injury in swine.

13 keywords...

hide…