ArticleSurgery in practice and science2022
Characterization of the mesenteric circulatory physiology during hemorrhagic shock in a swine model.
Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2022. 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.
- Technical and analytical approach to biventricular pressure-volume loops in swine including a completely endovascular, percutaneous closed-chest large animal model.JVS-vascular science · 2024Article
- Thoracic Endovascular Aortic RepairAcutely Augments Left Ventricular Biomechanics in An Animal Model: A Mechanism for Postoperative Heart Failure and Hypertension.Annals of vascular surgery · 2023Article
- Autologous blood resuscitation for large animals in a research setting using the Hemafuse device: Preliminary data of device use for controlled and real-world hemorrhage.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to characterize blood flow through the mesenteric circulation during hemorrhage and resuscitation in a large animal model. Methods: Five male swine (50-70 kg) underwent anesthesia and placement of flow probes and pressure catheters around and within the superior mesenteric artery, portal vein, and inferior vena cava. A laser doppler flow probe was placed on the intestine to measure end-organ perfusion. Animals were then exsanguinated to a systolic blood pressure of <50mmHg with 60-minutes of shock followed by resuscitation for 120-minutes. Results: Animals were placed into hemorrhagic shock (lactate peak 5.9 ± 2.1 mmol/L vs baseline: 3.4 ± 0.7 mmol/L) with lower pressures and flows during shock and restoration to baseline following resuscitation: SMA (70 vs 36 vs 75 mmHg, p<0.001; 856 vs 371 vs 762 mL/min, p<0.001), portal vein (9 vs 8 vs 10mmHg, p<0.001; 200 vs 52 vs 141 mL/min, p<0.001), IVC (12 vs 7 vs 10 mmHg, p<0.001; 209 vs 27 vs 163 mL/min, p<0.001), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) (67 vs 36 vs 69 mmHg, p<0.001). LDF fell during hemorrhage (1.38 vs 0.38 blood perfusion units (BPU), p<0.001) and did not return to baseline during resuscitation (0.70 BPU, p<0.001). The intestine achieved only 51% of baseline LDF perfusion after resuscitation despite return of mesenteric hemodynamics. Conclusion: Despite macrovascular physiologic restoration after hemorrhagic shock, end organ perfusion did not adequately recover following resuscitation to baseline MAP. Continuous physiologic insult to the mesentery is likely ongoing after systemic hemodynamic restoration.
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.