4.6 Article

Initial administration of hydroxyethyl starch vs lactated Ringer after liver trauma in the pig

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 221-226

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aen350

关键词

blood, loss; blood, haemodilution; fluids, i.v.; research, animal

资金

  1. Aase & Ejnar Danielsens Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. This study tested the circulatory effectiveness of post-trauma administration of a large intravascular volume expander, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (HES), vs standard lactated Ringer's solution (RL). Methods. Liver injury was inflicted in 14 pigs [31 (4) kg; mean (SD)] and treatment simulated an acute pre-hospital event: after a standard first-respond delay (7 min), volume administration was provided in three phases to simulate increasing intravascular access. In the first two phases, the fluid was administered either by HES or by RL and, during the last phase, all animals received HES to stabilize the intravascular volume. Results. The liver trauma severed an equal number of 1-3 mm diameter blood vessels [1.4 (0.6)] and after 7 min, the blood loss was 184 (127) ml and mean arterial pressure had decreased by 19 (13) mm Hg (P<0.01). The intravascular volume expansion effect was 115 (25)% for HES and 76 (21)% for RL (P<0.05), yet oxygen uptake was maintained in zero of seven vs three of seven pigs and the survival was three of seven vs seven of seven, respectively (P<0.05). In these animals, the initial administration of HES provoked uncontrolled bleeding, whereas the administration of RL was associated with attenuated bleeding: total blood loss 2455 (1919) vs 311 (208) ml, respectively (P<0.01), reflecting that bleeding ceased in six of the pigs administered RL. Conclusions. After injury, the intravascular volume expanding effect of HES was larger than that for RL. However, initial administration of HES provoked uncontrolled haemorrhage, suggesting that prioritizing intravascular volume expansion did not result in stabilization of the circulation after haemorrhage.

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

4.6
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