Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Trauma. 2003 Feb;54(2):280-5.

Comparison of 10 different hemostatic dressings in an aortic injury.

Author information

1
US Army Institute of Surgical Research, San Antonio, Texas 78234-6315, USA. jill.sondeen@cen.amedd.army.mil

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the leading preventable cause of death on the battlefield. Similarly, hemorrhage accounts for 80% of all deaths within the first 48 hours of injury in civilian trauma patients. New methods of hemostasis are required to reduce hemorrhagic mortality. The purpose of this study was to compare nine hemostatic dressings for their efficacy in controlling bleeding from an otherwise fatal aortic injury in a pig model. Each hemostatic dressing was compared with the current standard U.S. Army field gauze dressing for a 1-hour period.

METHODS:

Fifty-nine anesthetized pigs were instrumented with catheters and splenectomized. Nine test dressings (n = 5 per group) and two control groups (gauze, n = 9; suture, n = 5) were applied to a 4.4-mm aortotomy through the spraying jet of blood, and direct pressure was held for 4 minutes and then released. Survival, blood loss, and other variables were measured over a 1-hour period.

RESULTS:

All animals with fibrin dressing and those receiving suture repair (five of five in both groups) survived the 1-hour observation period with minimal bleeding in the postocclusion period (< 37 mL). Those in the other dressing groups exsanguinated within 10 minutes, except for two animals in the gauze group surviving 1 hour.

CONCLUSION:

With one 4-minute application, a single fibrin dressing stopped bleeding from an aortotomy, which was equivalent to sutured repair. No other test group exhibited any evidence of significant hemostatic efficacy.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center