Comparison of Topical Hemostatic Agents in a Swine Model of Extremity Arterial Hemorrhage: BloodSTOP iX Battle Matrix vs. QuikClot Combat Gauze
AbstractBloodSTOP iX Battle Matrix (BM) and QuikClot Combat Gauze (CG) have both been used to treat traumatic bleeding. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and initial safety of both products in a swine extremity arterial hemorrhage model, which mimics combat injury. Swine (37.13 ± 0.56 kg, NBM = 11, NCG = 9) were anesthetized and splenectomized. We then isolated the femoral arteries and performed a 6 mm arteriotomy. After 45 s of free bleeding, either BM or CG was applied. Fluid resuscitation was provided to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg. Animals were observed for three hours or until death. Fluoroscopic angiography and wound stability challenge tests were performed on survivors. Tissue samples were collected for histologic examination. Stable hemostasis was achieved in 11/11 BM and 5/9 CG subjects, with recovery of mean arterial pressure and animal survival for three hours (p < 0.05, Odds Ratio (OR) = 18.82 (0.85–415.3)). Time to stable hemostasis was shorter for the BM-treated group (4.8 ± 2.5 min vs. 58 ± 20.1 min; Median = 2, Interquartile Range (IQR) = 0 min vs. Median = 60, IQR = 120 min; p < 0.05) and experienced longer total stable hemostasis (175.2 ± 2.5 min vs. 92.4 ± 29.9 min; Median = 178, IQR = 0 min vs. Median = 120, IQR = 178 min; p < 0.05). Post-treatment blood loss was lower with BM (9.5 ± 2.4 mL/kg, Median = 10.52, IQR = 13.63 mL/kg) compared to CG (29.9 ± 9.9 mL/kg, Median = 29.38, IQR = 62.44 mL/kg) (p = 0.2875). Standard BM products weighed less compared to CG (6.9 ± 0.03 g vs. 20.2 ± 0.4 g) (p < 0.05) and absorbed less blood (3.4 ± 0.8 g vs. 41.9 ± 12.3 g) (p < 0.05). Fluoroscopic angiography showed recanalization in 5/11 (BM) and 0/5 (CG) surviving animals (p = 0.07, OR = 9.3 (0.41–208.8)). The wound stability challenge test resulted in wound re-bleeding in 1/11 (BM) and 5/5 (CG) surviving animals (p < 0.05, OR = 0.013 (0.00045–0.375)). Histologic evidence indicated no wound site, distal limb or major organ damage in either group. BM is more effective and portable in treating arterial hemorrhage compared to CG. There was no histologic evidence of further damage in either group. View Full-Text
Share & Cite This Article
Li, H.; Wang, L.; Alwaal, A.; Lee, Y.-C.; Reed-Maldonado, A.; Spangler, T.A.; Banie, L.; O’Hara, R.B.; Lin, G. Comparison of Topical Hemostatic Agents in a Swine Model of Extremity Arterial Hemorrhage: BloodSTOP iX Battle Matrix vs. QuikClot Combat Gauze. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 545.
Li H, Wang L, Alwaal A, Lee Y-C, Reed-Maldonado A, Spangler TA, Banie L, O’Hara RB, Lin G. Comparison of Topical Hemostatic Agents in a Swine Model of Extremity Arterial Hemorrhage: BloodSTOP iX Battle Matrix vs. QuikClot Combat Gauze. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2016; 17(4):545.Chicago/Turabian Style
Li, Huixi; Wang, Lin; Alwaal, Amjad; Lee, Yung-Chin; Reed-Maldonado, Amanda; Spangler, Taylor A.; Banie, Lia; O’Hara, Reginald B.; Lin, Guiting. 2016. "Comparison of Topical Hemostatic Agents in a Swine Model of Extremity Arterial Hemorrhage: BloodSTOP iX Battle Matrix vs. QuikClot Combat Gauze." Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, no. 4: 545.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.