4.1 Article

Isovolaemic hemodilution with gelatin and hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.42: effects on hemostasis in piglets

期刊

PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 379-385

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03798.x

关键词

gelatin; hydroxyethyl starch; i; v; infusions; multiple electrode impedance aggregometry; thrombelastometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Artificial colloids, frequently used to prevent hemorrhagic shock in children, impair blood coagulation. To determine the impact of acute isovolaemic hemodilution with artificial colloids on clot formation, we conducted an experimental study in a pediatric animal model. Methods: Fifteen piglets underwent hemorrhage by withdrawing 40 ml.kg(-1) of blood volume in steps of 10 ml.kg(-1) each within 1 hour. After each withdrawal, the blood loss was randomly compensated by administering 4% gelatin (GEL) or hydroxylethyl starch 130/0.42 (HES) in a ratio of 1 : 1, or isotonic crystalloid solution (ICS) in a ratio of 1 : 4 for isovolaemic hemodilution. Quality of clot formation and platelet function was measured using Thrombelastometry (ROTEM (R)) and Multiple electrode impedance aggregometry (Multiplate (R)) after 10, 20, and 40 ml.kg(-1) blood replacement. Results: Moderate hemodilution (10- 20 ml kg(-1) blood replacement) caused no significant differences among groups (e. g. INTEM (R) - MCF after 20 ml.kg(-1) blood replacement (ICS vs GEL vs HES, P > 0.05). Profound hemodilution with 40 ml kg(-1) blood replacement showed a significant difference between ICS and both colloids (P < 0.05), but no significant differences between GEL and HES. Conclusions: Impairment of clot formation by moderate isovolaemic hemodilution did not significantly differ between ICS, GEL, and HES. Profound hemodilution of more than 50% of the estimated blood volume with GEL and HES caused significant impairment of clot formation in comparison to ICS and has to be considered when using high amounts of these synthetic colloids.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据