Xiaoming Shi1, Mary J Edwards2, Jordan Guice1, Richard Strilka3, Brandon Propper1. 1. Department of Surgery, San Antonio Military Medical Center, Brooke Army Medical Center, 8551 Roger Brooke Dr, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX, 78234, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, San Antonio Military Medical Center, Brooke Army Medical Center, 8551 Roger Brooke Dr, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX, 78234, USA. Maryjbar@aol.com. 3. Uniformed University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pediatric patient's response to hemorrhage as a function of young age is not well understood. As a result, there is no consensus on optimal resuscitation strategies for hemorrhagic shock in pediatric patients, or on the identification of clinical triggers to prompt implementation. The study objective was to develop a model of pediatric hemorrhage using young pigs to simulate school-aged children, and determine clinical and laboratory indicators for significant hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 29 non-splenectomized female pigs, aged 3 months, weighing 30-40 kg, were randomized into groups with varying degrees of hemorrhage. Bleeding occurred intermittently over 5 h while the animals were anesthetized but spontaneously breathing. Various physiologic and biochemical markers were used to monitor the piglets during hemorrhage. RESULTS: Swine experiencing up to 50% hemorrhage survived without exception throughout the course of hemorrhage. 80% (4/5) of the animals in the 60% hemorrhage group survived. Need for respiratory support was universal when blood loss reached 50% of estimated blood volume. Blood pressure was not useful in classifying the degree of shock. Heart rate was helpful in differentiating between the extremes of blood loss examined. Arterial pCO2, pH, lactate, HCO3 and creatinine levels, as well as urine output, changed significantly with increasing blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Young swine are resilient against hemorrhage, although hemorrhage of 50% or greater universally require respiratory support. In this animal model, with the exception of heart rate, vital signs were minimally helpful in identification of shock. However, change in select laboratory values from baseline was significant with increasing blood loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This was a level II prospective comparative study.
BACKGROUND: The pediatric patient's response to hemorrhage as a function of young age is not well understood. As a result, there is no consensus on optimal resuscitation strategies for hemorrhagic shock in pediatric patients, or on the identification of clinical triggers to prompt implementation. The study objective was to develop a model of pediatric hemorrhage using young pigs to simulate school-aged children, and determine clinical and laboratory indicators for significant hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 29 non-splenectomized female pigs, aged 3 months, weighing 30-40 kg, were randomized into groups with varying degrees of hemorrhage. Bleeding occurred intermittently over 5 h while the animals were anesthetized but spontaneously breathing. Various physiologic and biochemical markers were used to monitor the piglets during hemorrhage. RESULTS:Swine experiencing up to 50% hemorrhage survived without exception throughout the course of hemorrhage. 80% (4/5) of the animals in the 60% hemorrhage group survived. Need for respiratory support was universal when blood loss reached 50% of estimated blood volume. Blood pressure was not useful in classifying the degree of shock. Heart rate was helpful in differentiating between the extremes of blood loss examined. Arterial pCO2, pH, lactate, HCO3 and creatinine levels, as well as urine output, changed significantly with increasing blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Young swine are resilient against hemorrhage, although hemorrhage of 50% or greater universally require respiratory support. In this animal model, with the exception of heart rate, vital signs were minimally helpful in identification of shock. However, change in select laboratory values from baseline was significant with increasing blood loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This was a level II prospective comparative study.
Authors: Mary J Edwards; Michael B Lustik; Margaret E Clark; Kevin M Creamer; David Tuggle Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Jeanne E Hendrickson; Beth H Shaz; Greg Pereira; Paul M Parker; Paula Jessup; Falisha Atwell; Beth Polstra; Elizabeth Atkins; Karen K Johnson; Gaobin Bao; Kirk A Easley; Cassandra D Josephson Journal: Transfusion Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Ruth S Hwu; Philip C Spinella; Martin S Keller; David Baker; Michael Wallendorf; Julie C Leonard Journal: Transfusion Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Matthew A Borgman; Philip C Spinella; Jeremy G Perkins; Kurt W Grathwohl; Thomas Repine; Alec C Beekley; James Sebesta; Donald Jenkins; Charles E Wade; John B Holcomb Journal: J Trauma Date: 2007-10
Authors: John B Holcomb; Deborah J del Junco; Erin E Fox; Charles E Wade; Mitchell J Cohen; Martin A Schreiber; Louis H Alarcon; Yu Bai; Karen J Brasel; Eileen M Bulger; Bryan A Cotton; Nena Matijevic; Peter Muskat; John G Myers; Herb A Phelan; Christopher E White; Jiajie Zhang; Mohammad H Rahbar Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 14.766