Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec;45(6):1077-1085.
doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0980-1. Epub 2018 Jul 13.

Resuscitation With Centhaquin and 6% Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 Improves Survival in a Swine Model of Hemorrhagic Shock: A Randomized Experimental Study

Affiliations

Resuscitation With Centhaquin and 6% Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 Improves Survival in a Swine Model of Hemorrhagic Shock: A Randomized Experimental Study

Zinais Kontouli et al. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. .

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effects of the combination of centhaquin and 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (HES 130/0.4) in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock.

Methods: Twenty Landrace-Large White pigs were instrumented and subjected to hemorrhagic shock. The animals were randomly allocated in two experimental groups, the control (group CO, n = 10) and the centhaquin groups (0.015 mg/kg, n = 10, group CH). Acute hemorrhage was induced by stepwise blood withdrawal (18 mL/min) from the internal jugular vein until MAP decreased to 40-45 mmHg, whereas anesthesia remained constant. All animals received HES 130/0.4 solution in the resuscitation phase until their mean arterial pressure (MAP) reached 90% of the baseline. The animals were observed for 60 min, during which no further resuscitation was attempted.

Results: The total amount of blood and the bleeding time did not differ significantly between group CO and group CH (120 ± 13 vs. 120 ± 14 mL, p = 0.6; 20 ± 2 vs. 20 ± 1 min, p = 0.62, respectively). During the hemorrhagic phase, only a difference in heart rate (97.6 ± 4.4 vs. 128.4 ± 3.6 beats/min, p = 0.038) was observed between the two groups. The time required to reach the target MAP was significantly shorter in the centhaquin group compared to controls (13.7 ± 0.4 vs. 19.6 ± 0.84 min, p = 0.012). During the resuscitation phase, a statistical significant difference was observed in MAP (75.2 ± 1.6 vs. 89.8 ± 2.1 mmHg, p = 0.02) between group CO and group CH. During the observation phase, a statistical significant difference was observed in SVR (1109 ± 32.65 vs. 774.6 ± 21.82 dyn s/cm5, p = 0.039) and cardiac output (5.82 ± 0.31 vs. 6.9 ± 0.78 L/min, p = 0.027) between the two groups. Two animals of group CO and seven animals of group CH survived for 24 h (p = 0.008). We observed a marked increase in microvascular capillary permeability in group CO compared to group CH, with the wet/dry weight ratio being significantly higher in group CO compared to group CH (4.8 ± 1.6 vs. 3.08 ± 0.6, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The combination of centhaquin 0.015 mg/kg and HES 130/0.4 resulted in shorter time to target MAP, lower wet-to-dry ratio, and better survival rates after resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock.

Keywords: Acute care anesthesiology; Centhaquin; Emergency surgery; Hemorrhagic shock; Hydroxyethyl starch; Survival.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Anesth Analg. 1995 May;80(5):925-32 - PubMed

References

    1. Anesth Analg. 2004 Mar;98(3):768-74, table of contents - PubMed

References

    1. New Horiz. 1995 Aug;3(3):488-98 - PubMed

References

    1. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016 Apr;29(2):158-65 - PubMed

References

    1. Pharmacol Res. 2010 Dec;62(6):489-99 - PubMed

References

    1. J Trauma. 2003 May;54(5 Suppl):S82-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Crit Care. 2013 Jul 12;17(4):R141 - PubMed

References

    1. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2005 Spring;35(2):174-83 - PubMed

References

    1. J Surg Res. 2016 Jan;200(1):227-35 - PubMed

References

    1. Med Intensiva. 2015 Jun-Jul;39(5):303-15 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Anaesth. 2014 Jun;112(6):1015-23 - PubMed

References

    1. Ann Surg. 1972 Sep;176(3):288-95 - PubMed

References

    1. Anesth Analg. 2007 Mar;104(3):624-30 - PubMed

References

    1. Shock. 2014 Oct;42(4):307-12 - PubMed

References

    1. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Nov;79(5):732-40 - PubMed

References

    1. Pharmacol Res. 1990 May-Jun;22(3):319-29 - PubMed

References

    1. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2006 Summer;36(3):345-52 - PubMed

References

    1. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Jan;82(1):156-164 - PubMed

References

    1. J Surg Res. 2006 Sep;135(1):129-36 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Anaesth. 2013 Feb;110(2):231-40 - PubMed

References

    1. Crit Care. 2004 Oct;8(5):373-81 - PubMed

References

    1. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2010 May;104(5):311-2 - PubMed

References

    1. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2013 Jun;60(3):641-54 - PubMed

References

    1. Adv Physiol Educ. 2015 Dec;39(4):267-71 - PubMed

References

    1. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Jul-Sep;31(3):308-16 - PubMed

References

    1. Shock. 2015 Jul;44(1):25-31 - PubMed

References

    1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;(2):CD000567 - PubMed

References

    1. Intensive Care Med. 2007 Sep;33(9):1645-54 - PubMed

References

    1. Anesthesiology. 2013 Feb;118(2):395-408 - PubMed

References

    1. Int J Burns Trauma. 2012;2(1):59-67 - PubMed

References

    1. Eur J Pharmacol. 1993 Jan 19;230(3):293-300 - PubMed

References

    1. Crit Care. 2010;14(5):R185 - PubMed

References

    1. Int Immunopharmacol. 2009 Mar;9(3):347-53 - PubMed

References

    1. JAMA. 2013 Nov 6;310(17):1809-17 - PubMed

References

    1. J Crit Care. 2010 Dec;25(4):659.e1-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Crit Care Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):573-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Shock. 2010 Mar;33(3):229-41 - PubMed

References

    1. J Surg Res. 2013 Jan;179(1):115-24 - PubMed

References

    1. Comp Med. 2011 Apr;61(2):158-62 - PubMed

References

    1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000567 - PubMed

References

    1. Anesthesiology. 2010 Nov;113(5):1092-8 - PubMed

References

    1. Am J Emerg Med. 2009 Jul;27(6):651-9 - PubMed

References

    1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD001319 - PubMed

References

    1. Arzneimittelforschung. 1985;35(4):693-7 - PubMed

References

    1. Br J Anaesth. 2016 Oct;117(4):458-463 - PubMed

References

    1. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Sep;27(9):794-800 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback