ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2019
Resuscitation with centhaquin and 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 improves survival in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock: a randomized experimental study.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
A Prospective, Multi-Centric, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel, Phase-III Study to Assess Efficacy of PMZ-2010 as a Resuscitative Agent for Hypovolemic Shock to be Used as an Adjuvant to Standard Shock Treatment
A Prospective, Multi-centric, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel, Saline Controlled Phase II Safety and Efficacy Study of PMZ-2010 as a Resuscitative Agent for Hypovolemic Shock to be Used Along With Standard Shock Treatment.
A Multicentric, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Centhaquine as an Adjuvant to the Standard of Care in Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
A Multi-Centric, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled, Phase-III Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of Centhaquine as a Resuscitative Agent to be Used as an Adjuvant to Standard Treatment of Hypovolemic Shock
A Prospective, Multi-centric, Open-labeled, Phase-IV Study to Assess Safety and Efficacy of LYFAQUIN™ (Centhaquine Citrate) as a Resuscitative Agent for Hypovolemic Shock to be Used as an Adjuvant to Standard Treatment of Shock
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Resuscitative Effect of Centhaquine (LyfaquinAdvances in therapy · 2021Trial
- Review
- Role of adrenergic receptors in shock.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Asphyxia-Induced Bacterial Translocation in an Animal Experimental Model in Neonatal Piglets.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Assessment of Dynamic Changes in Stressed Volume and Venous Return during Hyperdynamic Septic Shock.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Determinants of venous return in steady-state physiology and asphyxia-induced circulatory shock and arrest: an experimental study.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2022Article
- Pharmacokinetic Disposition of Amiodarone When Given with an Intralipid Rescue Strategy.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Centhaquine Restores Renal Blood Flow and Protects Tissue Damage After Hemorrhagic Shock and Renal Ischemia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Article
- Measurement of mean systemic filling pressure after severe hemorrhagic shock in swine anesthetized with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia: implications for vasopressor-free resuscitation.Acute and critical care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo 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.
methodsTwenty 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.
resultsThe 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/cm
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30006694What 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.