Sarah Ann Watts1, Jason Edward Smith2, Thomas Woolley2, Rory Frederick Rickard2, Robert Gwyther1, Emrys Kirkman3. 1. Chemical, Biological and Radiological Division, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JQ, UK. 2. Research and Clinical Innovation, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, B15 2SQ, UK. 3. Chemical, Biological and Radiological Division, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JQ, UK. ekirkman@dstl.gov.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In military trauma, disaster medicine, and casualties injured in remote locations, times to advanced medical and surgical treatment are often prolonged, potentially reducing survival and increasing morbidity. Since resuscitation with blood/blood components improves survival over short pre-surgical times, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of resuscitation afforded by blood/blood products or crystalloid resuscitation over extended 'pre-hospital' timelines in a porcine model of militarily relevant traumatic haemorrhagic shock. METHODS: This study underwent local ethical review and was done under the authority of Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Forty-five terminally anaesthetised pigs received a soft tissue injury to the right thigh, haemorrhage (30% blood volume and a Grade IV liver injury) and fluid resuscitation initiated 30 min later [Group 1 (no fluid); 2 (0.9% saline); 3 (1:1 packed red blood cells:plasma); 4 (fresh whole blood); or 5 (plasma)]. Fluid (3 ml/kg bolus) was administered during the resuscitation period (maximum duration 450 min) when the systolic blood pressure fell below 80 mmHg. Surviving animals were culled with an overdose of anaesthetic. RESULTS: Survival time was significantly shorter for Group 1 compared to the other groups (P < 0.05). Despite the same triggers for resuscitation when compared to blood/blood components, saline was associated with a shorter survival time (P = 0.145), greater pathophysiological burden and significantly greater resuscitation fluid volume (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: When times to advanced medical care are prolonged, resuscitation with blood/blood components is recommended over saline due to the superior quality and stability of resuscitation achieved, which are likely to lead to improved patient outcomes.
PURPOSE: In military trauma, disaster medicine, and casualties injured in remote locations, times to advanced medical and surgical treatment are often prolonged, potentially reducing survival and increasing morbidity. Since resuscitation with blood/blood components improves survival over short pre-surgical times, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of resuscitation afforded by blood/blood products or crystalloid resuscitation over extended 'pre-hospital' timelines in a porcine model of militarily relevant traumatic haemorrhagic shock. METHODS: This study underwent local ethical review and was done under the authority of Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Forty-five terminally anaesthetised pigs received a soft tissue injury to the right thigh, haemorrhage (30% blood volume and a Grade IV liver injury) and fluid resuscitation initiated 30 min later [Group 1 (no fluid); 2 (0.9% saline); 3 (1:1 packed red blood cells:plasma); 4 (fresh whole blood); or 5 (plasma)]. Fluid (3 ml/kg bolus) was administered during the resuscitation period (maximum duration 450 min) when the systolic blood pressure fell below 80 mmHg. Surviving animals were culled with an overdose of anaesthetic. RESULTS: Survival time was significantly shorter for Group 1 compared to the other groups (P < 0.05). Despite the same triggers for resuscitation when compared to blood/blood components, saline was associated with a shorter survival time (P = 0.145), greater pathophysiological burden and significantly greater resuscitation fluid volume (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: When times to advanced medical care are prolonged, resuscitation with blood/blood components is recommended over saline due to the superior quality and stability of resuscitation achieved, which are likely to lead to improved patient outcomes.
Authors: John B Holcomb; Barbara C Tilley; Sarah Baraniuk; Erin E Fox; Charles E Wade; Jeanette M Podbielski; Deborah J del Junco; Karen J Brasel; Eileen M Bulger; Rachael A Callcut; Mitchell Jay Cohen; Bryan A Cotton; Timothy C Fabian; Kenji Inaba; Jeffrey D Kerby; Peter Muskat; Terence O'Keeffe; Sandro Rizoli; Bryce R H Robinson; Thomas M Scalea; Martin A Schreiber; Deborah M Stein; Jordan A Weinberg; Jeannie L Callum; John R Hess; Nena Matijevic; Christopher N Miller; Jean-Francois Pittet; David B Hoyt; Gail D Pearson; Brian Leroux; Gerald van Belle Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jason B Brill; Brian Tang; Gabrielle Hatton; Krislynn M Mueck; C Cameron McCoy; Lillian S Kao; Bryan A Cotton Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Hunter B Moore; Ernest E Moore; Michael P Chapman; Kevin McVaney; Gary Bryskiewicz; Robert Blechar; Theresa Chin; Clay Cothren Burlew; Fredric Pieracci; F Bernadette West; Courtney D Fleming; Arsen Ghasabyan; James Chandler; Christopher C Silliman; Anirban Banerjee; Angela Sauaia Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jason L Sperry; Francis X Guyette; Joshua B Brown; Mark H Yazer; Darrell J Triulzi; Barbara J Early-Young; Peter W Adams; Brian J Daley; Richard S Miller; Brian G Harbrecht; Jeffrey A Claridge; Herb A Phelan; William R Witham; A Tyler Putnam; Therese M Duane; Louis H Alarcon; Clifton W Callaway; Brian S Zuckerbraun; Matthew D Neal; Matthew R Rosengart; Raquel M Forsythe; Timothy R Billiar; Donald M Yealy; Andrew B Peitzman; Mazen S Zenati Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stacy A Shackelford; Deborah J Del Junco; Jamie C Riesberg; Douglas Powell; Edward L Mazuchowski; Russ S Kotwal; Paul E Loos; Harold R Montgomery; Michael A Remley; Jennifer M Gurney; Sean Keenan Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Francis X Guyette; Jason L Sperry; Andrew B Peitzman; Timothy R Billiar; Brian J Daley; Richard S Miller; Brian G Harbrecht; Jeffrey A Claridge; Tyler Putnam; Therese M Duane; Herb A Phelan; Joshua B Brown Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Christopher Cameron McCoy; Megan Brenner; Juan Duchesne; Derek Roberts; Paula Ferrada; Tal Horer; David Kauvar; Mansoor Khan; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Carlos Ordonez; Bruno Perreira; Artai Priouzram; Bryan A Cotton Journal: Shock Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Stacy A Shackelford; Deborah J Del Junco; Nicole Powell-Dunford; Edward L Mazuchowski; Jeffrey T Howard; Russ S Kotwal; Jennifer Gurney; Frank K Butler; Kirby Gross; Zsolt T Stockinger Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicholas Crombie; Heidi A Doughty; Jonathan R B Bishop; Amisha Desai; Emily F Dixon; James M Hancox; Mike J Herbert; Caroline Leech; Simon J Lewis; Mark R Nash; David N Naumann; Gemma Slinn; Hazel Smith; Iain M Smith; Rebekah K Wale; Alastair Wilson; Natalie Ives; Gavin D Perkins Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 18.959