ArticleAmerican journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology2012
Preservation of hepatic blood flow by direct peritoneal resuscitation improves survival and prevents hepatic inflammation following hemorrhagic shock.
Article in American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phase I clinical trial of the feasibility and safety of direct peritoneal resuscitation in liver transplantation.American journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Correlation of effective hepatic blood flow with liver pathology in patients with hepatitis B virus.Liver research (Beijing, China) · 2021Article
- Association Between MC-2 Peptide and Hepatic Perfusion and Liver Injury Following Resuscitated Hemorrhagic Shock.JAMA surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional resuscitation (CR) from hemorrhagic shock (HS) results in gut and liver hypoperfusion, organ and cellular edema, and vital organ injury. Adjunct direct peritoneal resuscitation (DPR) with dialysate prevents gut vasoconstriction, hypoperfusion, and injury. We hypothesized that DPR might also improve hepatocellular edema, inflammation, and injury. Anesthetized male SD rats were assigned to groups (n = 8/group): 1) sham (no HS); 2) HS (40% MAP/60 min) + intravenous fluid conventional resuscitation [CR; shed blood + 2 vol saline (SAL)/30 min]; 3) HS+CR+DPR (30 ml ip 2.5% glucose dialysate); or 4) HS+CR+SAL (30 ml ip saline). Histopathology showed lung and liver injury in HS+CR and HS+CR+SAL up to 24-h postresuscitation (post-RES) that was not in shams and which was prevented by adjunct DPR. Wet-to-dry weight ratios in HS+CR revealed organ edema formation that was prevented by adjunct DPR. HS+CR and HS+CR+SAL had 34% mortality by 24-h post-RES, which was absent with DPR (0%). Liver IFN-γ and IL-6 levels were elevated in CR compared with DPR or shams. TNF-α mRNA was upregulated in CR/sham and DPR/sham. IL-17 was downregulated in DPR/sham. CXCL10 mRNA was upregulated in CR/sham but downregulated in DPR/sham. Despite restored central hemodynamic performance after CR of HS, liver blood flow was compromised up to 24 h post-RES, and the addition of DPR restores and maintains liver perfusion at 24-h post-RES. DPR prevented liver injury, histological damage, and edema formation compared with CR alone. DPR provided a mitigating anti-inflammatory dampening of the systemic inflammatory response. In all, these effects likely account for improved survivorship in the DPR-treated group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.