Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Effectiveness of different resuscitation methods for severe uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock in a dog model

Shan Jiang1 , Shaoming He2, Yang Sun1

1Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Chest Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University School of Medicine; 2Department of Anesthesiology, 454th Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Nanjing, China.

For correspondence:-  Shan Jiang   Email: yd548i@163.com

Accepted: 27 October 2019        Published: 30 November 2019

Citation: Jiang S, He S, Sun Y. Effectiveness of different resuscitation methods for severe uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock in a dog model. Trop J Pharm Res 2019; 18(11):2391-2396 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v18i11.23

© 2019 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the effects of pituitrin resuscitation, hypertonic saline resuscitation and limited fluid resuscitation on a novel dog model of severe uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock (UCHS).
Methods: Severe UCHS was produced in healthy Chinese dogs (n = 24) using a standard method. The hemorrhaged dogs were randomly divided into three groups of 8 dogs each: vasopressin group (group A), hypertonic saline group (group B), and low-volume fluid resuscitation group (group C). Group A received pituitrin at an initial dose of 0.1U/kg intravenously, which was thereafter reduced to 0.04 U/kg/min. Group B dogs received 7.5 % hypertonic saline (6 mL/kg), while dogs in group C were treated with 6 % hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 200/0.5. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) of the dogs was maintained between 50 and 55 mmHg, and after 1 h, full-volume resuscitation was administered. Hemodynamic parameters, blood gas, levels of inflammatory factors and blood loss were assessed at different time points.
Results: Compared with group A, hemodynamic parameters in group B were higher; hematocrit of group B was lower; IL-10 of groups B and C were reduced, but TNF-α, TNF-α/IL-10 and ACTH were elevated (p < 0.05). Relative to group C, base deficits in groups A and B were low. During uncontrolled hemorrhage phase, blood loss in group B was higher than that in other groups (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: The results obtained in this study suggest that pituitrin resuscitation produces relatively optimal effect through effective maintenance of coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) and reduction of inflammatory responses.

Keywords: Uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock, Pituitrin resuscitation, Limited fluid resuscitation, Hypertonic saline resuscitation, Heart rate

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.523 (2021)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 39 (2021)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates