Advanced hemostatic dressings are not superior to gauze for care under fire scenarios

Jennifer Watters, Philbert Van, Gregory J. Hamilton, Chitra Sambasivan, Jerome A. Differding, Martin Schreiber

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Advanced hemostatic dressings perform superior to standard gauze (SG) in animal hemorrhage models but require 2 minutes to 5 minutes application time, which is not feasible on the battlefield. METHODS: Twenty-four swine received a femoral artery injury, 30 seconds uncontrolled hemorrhage and randomization to packing with SG, Combat Gauze (CG), or Celox Gauze (XG) without external pressure. Animals were resuscitated to baseline mean arterial pressures with lactated Ringers and monitored for 120 minutes. Physiologic and coagulation parameters were collected throughout. Dressing failure was defined as overt bleeding outside the wound cavity. Tissues were collected for histologic and ultrastructural studies. RESULTS: All animals survived to study end. There were no differences in baseline physiologic or coagulation parameters or in dressing success rate (SG: 8/8, CG: 4/8, XG: 6/8) or blood loss between groups (SG: 260 mL, CG: 374 mL, XG: 204 mL; p > 0.3). SG (40 seconds ± 0.9 seconds) packed significantly faster than either the CG (52 ± 2.0) or XG (59 ± 1.9). At 120 minutes, all groups had a significantly shorter time to clot formation compared with baseline (p <0.01). At 30 minutes, the XG animals had shorter time to clot compared with SG and CG animals (p <0.05). All histology sections had mild intimal and medial edema. No inflammation, necrosis, or deposition of dressing particles in vessel walls was observed. No histologic or ultrastructural differences were found between the study dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced hemostatic dressings do not perform better than conventional gauze in an injury and application model similar to a care under fire scenario.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1413-1418
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
    Volume70
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jun 2011

    Fingerprint

    Hemostatics
    Bandages
    Hemorrhage
    Wounds and Injuries
    Tunica Intima
    Femoral Artery
    Random Allocation
    Edema
    Histology
    Arterial Pressure
    Necrosis
    Swine
    Animal Models
    Inflammation
    Pressure

    Keywords

    • Care under fire
    • Celox Gauze
    • Combat Gauze
    • Hemorrhagic shock
    • Hemostatic dressing

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Surgery
    • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

    Cite this

    Advanced hemostatic dressings are not superior to gauze for care under fire scenarios. / Watters, Jennifer; Van, Philbert; Hamilton, Gregory J.; Sambasivan, Chitra; Differding, Jerome A.; Schreiber, Martin.

    In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Vol. 70, No. 6, 06.2011, p. 1413-1418.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{90d8cb56d58542999062e7ccc38eda4a,
    title = "Advanced hemostatic dressings are not superior to gauze for care under fire scenarios",
    abstract = "BACKGROUND: Advanced hemostatic dressings perform superior to standard gauze (SG) in animal hemorrhage models but require 2 minutes to 5 minutes application time, which is not feasible on the battlefield. METHODS: Twenty-four swine received a femoral artery injury, 30 seconds uncontrolled hemorrhage and randomization to packing with SG, Combat Gauze (CG), or Celox Gauze (XG) without external pressure. Animals were resuscitated to baseline mean arterial pressures with lactated Ringers and monitored for 120 minutes. Physiologic and coagulation parameters were collected throughout. Dressing failure was defined as overt bleeding outside the wound cavity. Tissues were collected for histologic and ultrastructural studies. RESULTS: All animals survived to study end. There were no differences in baseline physiologic or coagulation parameters or in dressing success rate (SG: 8/8, CG: 4/8, XG: 6/8) or blood loss between groups (SG: 260 mL, CG: 374 mL, XG: 204 mL; p > 0.3). SG (40 seconds ± 0.9 seconds) packed significantly faster than either the CG (52 ± 2.0) or XG (59 ± 1.9). At 120 minutes, all groups had a significantly shorter time to clot formation compared with baseline (p <0.01). At 30 minutes, the XG animals had shorter time to clot compared with SG and CG animals (p <0.05). All histology sections had mild intimal and medial edema. No inflammation, necrosis, or deposition of dressing particles in vessel walls was observed. No histologic or ultrastructural differences were found between the study dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced hemostatic dressings do not perform better than conventional gauze in an injury and application model similar to a care under fire scenario.",
    keywords = "Care under fire, Celox Gauze, Combat Gauze, Hemorrhagic shock, Hemostatic dressing",
    author = "Jennifer Watters and Philbert Van and Hamilton, {Gregory J.} and Chitra Sambasivan and Differding, {Jerome A.} and Martin Schreiber",
    year = "2011",
    month = "6",
    doi = "10.1097/TA.0b013e318216b796",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "70",
    pages = "1413--1418",
    journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
    issn = "2163-0755",
    publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
    number = "6",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Advanced hemostatic dressings are not superior to gauze for care under fire scenarios

    AU - Watters, Jennifer

    AU - Van, Philbert

    AU - Hamilton, Gregory J.

    AU - Sambasivan, Chitra

    AU - Differding, Jerome A.

    AU - Schreiber, Martin

    PY - 2011/6

    Y1 - 2011/6

    N2 - BACKGROUND: Advanced hemostatic dressings perform superior to standard gauze (SG) in animal hemorrhage models but require 2 minutes to 5 minutes application time, which is not feasible on the battlefield. METHODS: Twenty-four swine received a femoral artery injury, 30 seconds uncontrolled hemorrhage and randomization to packing with SG, Combat Gauze (CG), or Celox Gauze (XG) without external pressure. Animals were resuscitated to baseline mean arterial pressures with lactated Ringers and monitored for 120 minutes. Physiologic and coagulation parameters were collected throughout. Dressing failure was defined as overt bleeding outside the wound cavity. Tissues were collected for histologic and ultrastructural studies. RESULTS: All animals survived to study end. There were no differences in baseline physiologic or coagulation parameters or in dressing success rate (SG: 8/8, CG: 4/8, XG: 6/8) or blood loss between groups (SG: 260 mL, CG: 374 mL, XG: 204 mL; p > 0.3). SG (40 seconds ± 0.9 seconds) packed significantly faster than either the CG (52 ± 2.0) or XG (59 ± 1.9). At 120 minutes, all groups had a significantly shorter time to clot formation compared with baseline (p <0.01). At 30 minutes, the XG animals had shorter time to clot compared with SG and CG animals (p <0.05). All histology sections had mild intimal and medial edema. No inflammation, necrosis, or deposition of dressing particles in vessel walls was observed. No histologic or ultrastructural differences were found between the study dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced hemostatic dressings do not perform better than conventional gauze in an injury and application model similar to a care under fire scenario.

    AB - BACKGROUND: Advanced hemostatic dressings perform superior to standard gauze (SG) in animal hemorrhage models but require 2 minutes to 5 minutes application time, which is not feasible on the battlefield. METHODS: Twenty-four swine received a femoral artery injury, 30 seconds uncontrolled hemorrhage and randomization to packing with SG, Combat Gauze (CG), or Celox Gauze (XG) without external pressure. Animals were resuscitated to baseline mean arterial pressures with lactated Ringers and monitored for 120 minutes. Physiologic and coagulation parameters were collected throughout. Dressing failure was defined as overt bleeding outside the wound cavity. Tissues were collected for histologic and ultrastructural studies. RESULTS: All animals survived to study end. There were no differences in baseline physiologic or coagulation parameters or in dressing success rate (SG: 8/8, CG: 4/8, XG: 6/8) or blood loss between groups (SG: 260 mL, CG: 374 mL, XG: 204 mL; p > 0.3). SG (40 seconds ± 0.9 seconds) packed significantly faster than either the CG (52 ± 2.0) or XG (59 ± 1.9). At 120 minutes, all groups had a significantly shorter time to clot formation compared with baseline (p <0.01). At 30 minutes, the XG animals had shorter time to clot compared with SG and CG animals (p <0.05). All histology sections had mild intimal and medial edema. No inflammation, necrosis, or deposition of dressing particles in vessel walls was observed. No histologic or ultrastructural differences were found between the study dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced hemostatic dressings do not perform better than conventional gauze in an injury and application model similar to a care under fire scenario.

    KW - Care under fire

    KW - Celox Gauze

    KW - Combat Gauze

    KW - Hemorrhagic shock

    KW - Hemostatic dressing

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958796373&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958796373&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1097/TA.0b013e318216b796

    DO - 10.1097/TA.0b013e318216b796

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 21817978

    VL - 70

    SP - 1413

    EP - 1418

    JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

    JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

    SN - 2163-0755

    IS - 6

    ER -