Comparative Analysis of Whole Blood Infusion Effects: Assessing LifeFlow Versus Pressure Bag in a Sus scrofa Model

Author:

Mancha Fabiola12,Martinez Melody A12,Sifuentes Dayana12,Mendez Jessica12,Arana Allyson A2,Maddry Joseph K1345,Schauer Steven G1345ORCID

Affiliation:

1. U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research , JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA

2. Metis Foundation , San Antonio, TX 78216, USA

3. Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center , JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA

5. 59th Medical Wing , JBSA, Lackland, TX 78236, USA

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background To improve survival for hemorrhagic shock treatment, guidelines emphasize two patient care priorities: (1) immediate hemorrhage control and (2) early resuscitation with whole blood or blood products. The LifeFlow device is designed to rapidly infuse blood products. However, the effects of using this device compared to pressure-bag systems remain unclear. We hypothesize that there will be no laboratory-measured difference with the blood when infused through the LifeFlow versus the current standard pressure bag system. Methods Two units of fresh whole blood were obtained from a sus scrofa model. One unit was “infused” using the LifeFlow with the other unit used as a control through a standard pressure bag system into an empty bag. The “before” measurements were obtained from blood samples from a standard fresh whole blood collection bag. The blood was “infused” into a whole blood bag devoid of storage solution from which the “after” measurements were obtained. Results This study utilized 22 clinically healthy sus scrofa. Blood units were primarily obtained from a left subclavian central line (50.0%). The median time to acquire and administer a unit of blood was similar for both the LifeFlow device (8.4 min and 8.1 min) and the pressure bag (8.7 min and 7.4 min). No significant differences were found in the total time to acquire or administer blood between the two devices. The median volume of blood acquired was 500 mL for both groups. While no significant differences in blood parameters were observed between the two devices, significant differences were noted when comparing pre- and post-transfusion values within each device. For the LifeFlow device, an increase in hemoglobin and chloride levels and a decrease in thromboplastin time and glucose levels were observed. With the pressure bag, only a decrease in blood urea nitrogen was observed. Conclusions In comparing the LifeFlow to the pressure bag, there were no significant differences noted in the total time to acquire or administer a whole unit of blood. However, there were differences with several laboratory parameters of unclear clinical significance.

Funder

U.S. Department of Defense

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3