Literature DB >> 19329126

Efficacy of three topical hemostatic agents applied by medics in a lethal groin injury model.

Vance Y Sohn1, Matthew J Eckert, Matthew J Martin, Zachary M Arthurs, Jason R Perry, Alec Beekley, Eric J Rubel, Richard P Adams, Gerald L Bickett, Robert M Rush.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advanced topical hemostatic agents are increasingly utilized to control traumatic hemorrhage. We sought to determine the efficacy of three chitosan based hemostatic agents in a lethal groin injury model when applied by combat medic first responders.
METHODS: After creation of a standardized femoral artery injury in a goat model, medics attempted hemorrhage control with standard gauze dressing followed by randomization to one of three hemostatic agents in this two tiered study. In the first tier, medics were randomized to either a chitosan based one-sided wafer (OS) or a dual-sided, flexible, roll (DS). In the second tier, medics were randomized to the flexible DS dressing or a chitosan powder (CP). Efficacy of gauze, each chitosan agent, proper application, and participant surveys were obtained and included for analysis using univariate techniques.
RESULTS: From January 2007 to June 2007, 55 (45%) DS, 36 (29%) OS, and 32 (26%) CP agents were used to treat 123 actively bleeding arterial injuries in 62 animals. Standard gauze failed to stop hemorrhage in 122 (99%) groins. Although all three chitosan agents were marginally effective at 2 min, the recommended time for application, hemostasis improved after 4 min. The DS dressing was the most effective, controlling hemorrhage 76% at 4 min. Of the failures, 3 (23%) DS and 9 (53%) OS were due to improper application. End-user survey results demonstrated that medics preferred the DS dressing 77% and 60% over the OS and CP, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Chitosan based bandages are significantly more effective at hemorrhage control compared to standard gauze field dressings. The dual-sided chitosan dressing demonstrated better hemorrhage control than the one-sided dressing and the chitosan powder, and was less likely to fail despite application errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19329126     DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2008.07.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Res        ISSN: 0022-4804            Impact factor:   2.192


  6 in total

Review 1.  Current use of live tissue training in trauma: a descriptive systematic review.

Authors:  Luis Teodoro da Luz; Bartolomeu Nascimento; Homer Tien; Michael J Kim; Avery B Nathens; Savvas Vlachos; Elon Glassberg
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Surgical Materials: Current Challenges and Nano-enabled Solutions.

Authors:  Nasim Annabi; Ali Tamayol; Su Ryon Shin; Amir M Ghaemmaghami; Nicholas A Peppas; Ali Khademhosseini
Journal:  Nano Today       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 20.722

Review 3.  Biomaterials and Advanced Technologies for Hemostatic Management of Bleeding.

Authors:  DaShawn A Hickman; Christa L Pawlowski; Ujjal D S Sekhon; Joyann Marks; Anirban Sen Gupta
Journal:  Adv Mater       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 30.849

4.  Antibacterial hemostatic dressings with nanoporous bioglass containing silver.

Authors:  Gangfeng Hu; Luwei Xiao; Peijian Tong; Dawei Bi; Hui Wang; Haitao Ma; Gang Zhu; Hui Liu
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-05-28

5.  Enhanced hemostatic performance of tranexamic acid-loaded chitosan/alginate composite microparticles.

Authors:  Donghong Li; Pengxi Li; Jiatao Zang; Jiancang Liu
Journal:  J Biomed Biotechnol       Date:  2012-11-05

6.  Design of New-Generation Usable Forms of Topical Haemostatic Agents Containing Chitosan.

Authors:  Dorota Zielińska; Marcin H Struszczyk; Longina Madej-Kiełbik; Edyta Chmal-Fudali; Magdalena Kucharska; Maria Wiśniewska-Wrona; Kinga Brzoza-Malczewska
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 4.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.