Comparison of permissive hypotensive resuscitation, low-volume fluid resuscitation, and aggressive fluid resuscitation therapy approaches in an experimental uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock model.

BACKGROUND

In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of aggressive fluid resuscitation, low-volume fluid resuscitation and permissive hypotensive resuscitation in an experimental uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock model.

METHODS

Forty-four male Guinea pigs were used in the study in an experimental uncontrolled shock model. Guinea pigs were split into six groups including normovolemic-normotensive fluid treatment group, normovolemic-permissive hypotensive fluid treatment group, low-volume normotensive fluid treatment group, low-volume permissive hypotensive fluid treatment group, no treatment (n=6), and sham-operated groups (n=6). Resuscitation was initiated when mean arterial pressure (MAP) reached 30 mmHg. In the permissive hypotensive resuscitation group, fluid treatment continued until MAP reached 45+/-5 mmHg and in the aggressive fluid groups until MAP reached 60+/-5 mmHg. Resuscitation fluid was hetastarch 6% (hydroxyethyl starch) in the low-volume fluid groups and Ringer's lactate in the normovolemic fluid groups.

RESULTS

Mean survival time was 122.75+/-4.83 min in the normovolemic-normotensive fluid group, 130.87+/-16.31 min in the normovolemic-permissive hypotensive group, 122.12+/-11.53 min in the low-volume-normotensive fluid group, and 152.25+/-9.10 min in the low-volume-permissive hypotensive fluid group. Survival time was found significantly higher in the group in which low-volume-permissive hypotensive fluid treatment was applied than in the other groups.

CONCLUSION

When pressure effect was compared during treatment, permissive-hypotensive resuscitation was found more effective in both groups that received colloid and crystalloid treatment.