A highly porous silica and chitosan-based hemostatic dressing is superior in controlling hemorrhage in a severe groin injury model in swine

Chitra N. Sambasivan, S. David Cho, Karen A. Zink, Jerome A. Differding, Martin Schreiber

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    33 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: This study compared the efficacy of 3 hemostatic dressings in a severe groin injury model in swine. Methods: Twenty-three swine received TraumaStat (OreMedix, Lebanon, OR), Chitoflex (HemCon, Inc., Portland, OR), or standard gauze for hemostasis. Complete femoral vessel transections were followed by 30 seconds of uncontrolled hemorrhage. The groin was packed with the randomized dressing followed by 30 seconds of compression. Resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution commenced immediately postcompression to the preinjury mean arterial blood pressure. Hemostasis failure was defined as blood pooling outside the wound. Animals were monitored and maintained at the preinjury mean arterial pressure for 120 minutes, culminating with euthanization. Results: There were no differences in baseline values between groups. TraumaStat resulted in less hemostasis failure (P <.05), decreased postcompression blood loss (P <.05), and decreased fluid requirement (P <.05). No significant difference in mortality was seen between groups. There were no differences between standard gauze and Chitoflex with respect to dressing failure, posttreatment blood loss, or fluid resuscitation. Conclusions: TraumaStat performed significantly better than Chitoflex and standard gauze in controlling hemorrhage from a severe groin injury in swine.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)576-580
    Number of pages5
    JournalAmerican Journal of Surgery
    Volume197
    Issue number5
    DOIs
    StatePublished - May 2009

    Fingerprint

    Groin
    Chitosan
    Hemostatics
    Bandages
    Hemostasis
    Silicon Dioxide
    Arterial Pressure
    Swine
    Hemorrhage
    Resuscitation
    Wounds and Injuries
    Lebanon
    Thigh
    Mortality

    Keywords

    • Gauze
    • Hemorrhagic shock
    • Hemostatic dressing
    • Trauma
    • TraumaStat

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Surgery

    Cite this

    A highly porous silica and chitosan-based hemostatic dressing is superior in controlling hemorrhage in a severe groin injury model in swine. / Sambasivan, Chitra N.; Cho, S. David; Zink, Karen A.; Differding, Jerome A.; Schreiber, Martin.

    In: American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 197, No. 5, 05.2009, p. 576-580.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Sambasivan, Chitra N. ; Cho, S. David ; Zink, Karen A. ; Differding, Jerome A. ; Schreiber, Martin. / A highly porous silica and chitosan-based hemostatic dressing is superior in controlling hemorrhage in a severe groin injury model in swine. In: American Journal of Surgery. 2009 ; Vol. 197, No. 5. pp. 576-580.
    @article{6a8ae6cccb9a44ba94c5302d54bcd15a,
    title = "A highly porous silica and chitosan-based hemostatic dressing is superior in controlling hemorrhage in a severe groin injury model in swine",
    abstract = "Background: This study compared the efficacy of 3 hemostatic dressings in a severe groin injury model in swine. Methods: Twenty-three swine received TraumaStat (OreMedix, Lebanon, OR), Chitoflex (HemCon, Inc., Portland, OR), or standard gauze for hemostasis. Complete femoral vessel transections were followed by 30 seconds of uncontrolled hemorrhage. The groin was packed with the randomized dressing followed by 30 seconds of compression. Resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution commenced immediately postcompression to the preinjury mean arterial blood pressure. Hemostasis failure was defined as blood pooling outside the wound. Animals were monitored and maintained at the preinjury mean arterial pressure for 120 minutes, culminating with euthanization. Results: There were no differences in baseline values between groups. TraumaStat resulted in less hemostasis failure (P <.05), decreased postcompression blood loss (P <.05), and decreased fluid requirement (P <.05). No significant difference in mortality was seen between groups. There were no differences between standard gauze and Chitoflex with respect to dressing failure, posttreatment blood loss, or fluid resuscitation. Conclusions: TraumaStat performed significantly better than Chitoflex and standard gauze in controlling hemorrhage from a severe groin injury in swine.",
    keywords = "Gauze, Hemorrhagic shock, Hemostatic dressing, Trauma, TraumaStat",
    author = "Sambasivan, {Chitra N.} and Cho, {S. David} and Zink, {Karen A.} and Differding, {Jerome A.} and Martin Schreiber",
    year = "2009",
    month = "5",
    doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.12.011",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "197",
    pages = "576--580",
    journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
    issn = "0002-9610",
    publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
    number = "5",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - A highly porous silica and chitosan-based hemostatic dressing is superior in controlling hemorrhage in a severe groin injury model in swine

    AU - Sambasivan, Chitra N.

    AU - Cho, S. David

    AU - Zink, Karen A.

    AU - Differding, Jerome A.

    AU - Schreiber, Martin

    PY - 2009/5

    Y1 - 2009/5

    N2 - Background: This study compared the efficacy of 3 hemostatic dressings in a severe groin injury model in swine. Methods: Twenty-three swine received TraumaStat (OreMedix, Lebanon, OR), Chitoflex (HemCon, Inc., Portland, OR), or standard gauze for hemostasis. Complete femoral vessel transections were followed by 30 seconds of uncontrolled hemorrhage. The groin was packed with the randomized dressing followed by 30 seconds of compression. Resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution commenced immediately postcompression to the preinjury mean arterial blood pressure. Hemostasis failure was defined as blood pooling outside the wound. Animals were monitored and maintained at the preinjury mean arterial pressure for 120 minutes, culminating with euthanization. Results: There were no differences in baseline values between groups. TraumaStat resulted in less hemostasis failure (P <.05), decreased postcompression blood loss (P <.05), and decreased fluid requirement (P <.05). No significant difference in mortality was seen between groups. There were no differences between standard gauze and Chitoflex with respect to dressing failure, posttreatment blood loss, or fluid resuscitation. Conclusions: TraumaStat performed significantly better than Chitoflex and standard gauze in controlling hemorrhage from a severe groin injury in swine.

    AB - Background: This study compared the efficacy of 3 hemostatic dressings in a severe groin injury model in swine. Methods: Twenty-three swine received TraumaStat (OreMedix, Lebanon, OR), Chitoflex (HemCon, Inc., Portland, OR), or standard gauze for hemostasis. Complete femoral vessel transections were followed by 30 seconds of uncontrolled hemorrhage. The groin was packed with the randomized dressing followed by 30 seconds of compression. Resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution commenced immediately postcompression to the preinjury mean arterial blood pressure. Hemostasis failure was defined as blood pooling outside the wound. Animals were monitored and maintained at the preinjury mean arterial pressure for 120 minutes, culminating with euthanization. Results: There were no differences in baseline values between groups. TraumaStat resulted in less hemostasis failure (P <.05), decreased postcompression blood loss (P <.05), and decreased fluid requirement (P <.05). No significant difference in mortality was seen between groups. There were no differences between standard gauze and Chitoflex with respect to dressing failure, posttreatment blood loss, or fluid resuscitation. Conclusions: TraumaStat performed significantly better than Chitoflex and standard gauze in controlling hemorrhage from a severe groin injury in swine.

    KW - Gauze

    KW - Hemorrhagic shock

    KW - Hemostatic dressing

    KW - Trauma

    KW - TraumaStat

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64749105166&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=64749105166&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.12.011

    DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.12.011

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 19393351

    AN - SCOPUS:64749105166

    VL - 197

    SP - 576

    EP - 580

    JO - American Journal of Surgery

    JF - American Journal of Surgery

    SN - 0002-9610

    IS - 5

    ER -