• Murat Durusu, Mehmet Eryilmaz, Gürkan Oztürk, Oner Menteş, Tahir Ozer, and Turgut Deniz.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Diyarbakir Military Hospital, Diyarbakir, Turkey. muratdurusu2000@yahoo.com
• Ulus Travma Acil Cer. 2010 May 1;16(3):191-7.

BackgroundIn this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of aggressive fluid resuscitation, low-volume fluid resuscitation and permissive hypotensive resuscitation in an experimental uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock model.MethodsForty-four male Guinea pigs were used in the study in an experimental uncontrolled shock model. Guinea pigs were split into six groups including normovolemic-normotensive fluid treatment group, normovolemic-permissive hypotensive fluid treatment group, low-volume normotensive fluid treatment group, low-volume permissive hypotensive fluid treatment group, no treatment (n=6), and sham-operated groups (n=6). Resuscitation was initiated when mean arterial pressure (MAP) reached 30 mmHg. In the permissive hypotensive resuscitation group, fluid treatment continued until MAP reached 45+/-5 mmHg and in the aggressive fluid groups until MAP reached 60+/-5 mmHg. Resuscitation fluid was hetastarch 6% (hydroxyethyl starch) in the low-volume fluid groups and Ringer's lactate in the normovolemic fluid groups.ResultsMean survival time was 122.75+/-4.83 min in the normovolemic-normotensive fluid group, 130.87+/-16.31 min in the normovolemic-permissive hypotensive group, 122.12+/-11.53 min in the low-volume-normotensive fluid group, and 152.25+/-9.10 min in the low-volume-permissive hypotensive fluid group. Survival time was found significantly higher in the group in which low-volume-permissive hypotensive fluid treatment was applied than in the other groups.ConclusionWhen pressure effect was compared during treatment, permissive-hypotensive resuscitation was found more effective in both groups that received colloid and crystalloid treatment.

16 keywords...

hide…