title: Initial resuscitation with plasma and other blood components reduced bleeding compared to hetastarch in anesthetized swine with uncontrolled splenic hemorrhage.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Damage control resuscitation recommends use of more plasma and less crystalloid as initial resuscitation in treating hemorrhage. The purpose of this study was to evaluate resuscitation with either blood components or conventional fluids on coagulation and blood loss.
  
  
  METHODS
  Isofluorane-anesthetized, instrumented pigs (eight per group) underwent controlled hemorrhage of 24 mL/kg, 20-minute shock period, splenic injury with 15-minute initial bleeding, and hypotensive fluid resuscitation. Lactated Ringer's (LR) was infused at 45 mL/kg while hetastarch (high-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch 6%, Hextend, Hospira, Inc., Lake Forest, IL) and blood component (fresh-frozen plasma [FFP], 1:1 FFP:[red blood cells] RBCs, 1:4 FFP : RBCs, and fresh whole blood [FWB]) were infused at 15 mL/kg. Postresuscitation blood loss (PRBL), hemodynamics, coagulation, hematocrit, and oxygen metabolism were measured postinjury for 5 hours.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Resuscitation with any blood component reduced PRBL of 52% to 70% compared to Hextend, with FFP resulting in the lowest PRBL. PRBL with LR (11.5 ± 3.0 mL/kg) was not significantly different from Hextend (17.9 ± 2.5 mL/kg) or blood components (range, 5.5 ± 1.5 to 8.6 ± 2.6 mL/kg). The volume expansion effect of LR was transient. All fluids produced similar changes in hemodynamics, oxygen delivery, and demand despite the oxygen-carrying capacity of RBC-containing fluids. Compared with other fluids, Hextend produced greater hemodilution and reduced coagulation measures, which could be caused by an indirect dilutional effect or a direct hypocoagulable effect.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These data suggest that blood products as initial resuscitation fluids reduced PRBL from a noncompressible injury compared to Hextend, preserved coagulation, and provided sustained volume expansion. There were no differences on PRBL among RBCs-to-FFP, FWB, or FFP in this nonmassive transfusion model.
authors.affiliation: US Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam, Houston, Texas 78234-6315, USA. jill.sondeen@us.army.mil
authors.forename: Jill L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Sondeen
authors.forename: M Dale
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Prince
authors.forename: Bijan S
authors.initials: BS
authors.lastname: Kheirabadi
authors.forename: Charles E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Wade
authors.forename: I Amy
authors.initials: IA
authors.lastname: Polykratis
authors.forename: Rodolfo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: de Guzman
authors.forename: Michael A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Dubick
mesh_terms: D000777:Anesthetics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000818:Animals; D016913:Blood Component Transfusion / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006470:Hemorrhage / Q000628:therapy*; D006895:Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives / Q000627:therapeutic use; D012151:Resuscitation / Q000379:methods*; D013154:Spleen / Q000293:injuries*; D013552:Swine
chemical_list: D000777:Anesthetics; D006895:Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives