Abstract
Background: Hemorrhagic shock remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. The choice of resuscitation fluids plays a critical role in patient outcomes, with crystalloid solutions and blood products being the most commonly used strategies. This study aims to compare the efficacy of crystalloid versus blood product resuscitation in patients with hemorrhagic shock. Methods: A sample of 30 dogs with hemorrhagic shock was randomized into two groups: the control group (crystalloid resuscitation) and the non-control group (blood product resuscitation). Key outcomes measured included hemodynamic stability, organ function (SOFA score), complications (fluid overload, coagulopathy), length of hospital stay, and recovery time. Data were analyzed to assess the effectiveness of each resuscitation strategy. Results: The blood product group showed superior outcomes in terms of survival, hemodynamic stability, and organ function. The mean blood pressure was significantly higher post-resuscitation in the blood product group compared to the crystalloid group. Additionally, organ function improved faster in the blood product group, with lower SOFA scores at 48 hours. Complications such as fluid overload and dilutional coagulopathy were more common in the crystalloid group. The length of hospital stay and recovery time were also shorter in the blood product group. Conclusion: Blood product resuscitation is more effective than crystalloid resuscitation in improving hemodynamic stability, organ function, and minimizing complications in patients with hemorrhagic shock. These findings support the use of blood products as the primary resuscitation strategy in severe hemorrhagic shock, although further research with larger sample sizes is necessary to confirm these results.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos