Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Subscribed

Author Roger, Claire ♦ Louart, Benjamin ♦ Louart, Guillaume ♦ Bobbia, Xavier ♦ Claret, Pierre-Geraud ♦ Perez-Martin, Antonia ♦ Muller, Laurent ♦ Lefrant, Jean-Yves
Source World Health Organization (WHO)-Global Index Medicus
Content type Text
Publisher Elsevier
File Format HTM / HTML
Language English
Difficulty Level Medium
Subject Domain (in DDC) Technology ♦ Medicine & health
Abstract OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare 2 fluid infusion rates of lactated Ringer (LR) and hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 on hemodynamic restoration at the early phase of controlled hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: Fifty-six anesthetized and ventilated piglets were bled until mean arterial pressure (MAP) reached 40 mm Hg. Controlled hemorrhage was maintained for 30 minutes. After this period, 4 resuscitation groups were studied (n=14 for each group): HES infused at 1 or 4mL/kg per minute or LR1 infused at 1 or 4mL/kg per minute until baseline MAP was restored. Hemodynamic assessment using PiCCO monitoring and biological data were collected. RESULTS: Time to restore baseline MAP ±10% was significantly lower in LR4 group (11±11 minutes) compared to LR1 group (41±25 minutes) (P=.0004). Time to restore baseline MAP ±10% was significantly lower in HES4 group (4±3 minutes) compared to HES1 (11±4 minutes) (P=.0003). Time to restore baseline MAP ±10% was significantly lower with HES vs LR whatever the infusion rate. No statistically significant difference was observed in cardiac output, central venous saturation, extravascular lung water, and arterial lactate between 4 and 1 mL/kg per minute groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled hemorrhagic shock model, a faster infusion rate (4 vs 1mL/kg per minute) significantly decreased the time for restoring baseline MAP, regardless of the type of infused fluid. The time for MAP restoration was significantly shorter for HES as compared to LR whatever the fluid infusion rate.
Description Country affiliation: France
Author Affiliation: Roger C ( Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, 30029 Nîmes, France); Louart B ( Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, 30029 Nîmes, France); Louart G ( Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, 30029 Nîmes, France); Bobbia X ( Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, 30029 Nîmes, France); Claret PG ( Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, 30029 Nîmes, France.); Perez-Martin A ( Physiology Department, EA 2992, Faculté de Médecine de Nîmes, Université Montpellier 1, 30029 Nîmes, France.); Muller L ( Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, 30029 Nîmes, France); Lefrant JY ( Department of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, 30029 Nîmes, France)
ISSN 07356757
Educational Role Student ♦ Teacher
Age Range above 22 year
Educational Use Reading ♦ Research ♦ Self Learning
Interactivity Type Expositive
Education Level UG and PG
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2016-09-01
Publisher Place United States
e-ISSN 15328171
Journal The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume Number 34
Issue Number 9


Source: WHO-Global Index Medicus