RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hemorrhagic shock is well documented as a leading cause of preventable fatalities among military casualties. During military operations plasma can be transfused while waiting for whole blood. This study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of two new freeze-dried plasma formulations in a porcine model of traumatic hemorrhagic shock. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In the face of species-specific transfusion, transfusible blood products were derived from porcine sources. The efficacy of three lyophilized plasma (LP) formulations was evaluated: lyophilized plasma (LP), concentrated lyophilized plasma (CLP), and platelet-rich concentrated lyophilized plasma (PCLP). Pigs were subjected to multi-trauma and hemorrhagic shock. Ninety minutes post-shock induction, the animals were treated with one of the three lyophilized products. Monitoring included systolic blood pressure and cardiac output. Point-of-care and laboratory diagnostic tests were used to assess renal function, real-time hemostasis (ROTEM), and coagulation. Histological examinations of kidney, lung, and muscle tissues were conducted 4 h after shock induction. RESULTS: CLP and PCLP significantly improved systolic blood pressure and cardiac output and positively influenced base excess, creatinine, various ROTEM, and coagulation markers compared with standard LP without histologic modification. No adverse effect was associated with the transfusion of any of the plasma products throughout the experimental procedures. CONCLUSION: Both CLP and PCLP exhibit promising therapeutic potential for managing hemorrhagic shock in scenario where whole blood supplies are limited. However, the distinct physiological and coagulation characteristics of the swine model necessitate further investigation using humanized preclinical models to fully understand their clinical applicability and constraints.
RESUMO
Molecular diagnosis on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) is the current standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, but saliva may be an alternative specimen to facilitate access to diagnosis. We compared analytic performances, feasibility and acceptability of NPS, saliva, and oral-self sampling swab for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A prospective, multicenter study was conducted in military hospitals in France among adult outpatients attending COVID-19 diagnosis centers or hospitalized patients. For each patient, all samples were obtained and analyzed simultaneously with RT-PCR or transcription-mediated amplification method. Clinical signs, feasibility, and acceptability for each type of sample were collected. A total of 1220 patients were included, corresponding to 1205 NPS and saliva and 771 OS. Compared to NPS, the sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficient for tests performed on saliva were 87.8% (95% CI 83.3-92.3), 97.1% (95% CI 96.1-98.1), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88). Analytical performances were better in symptomatic patients. Ct values were significantly lower in NPS than saliva. For OS, sensitivity was estimated to be 61.1% (95% CI 52.7-69.4) and Kappa coefficient to be 0.69 (95% CI 0.62-0.76). OS was the technique preferred by the patients (44.3%) before saliva (42.4%) and NPS (13.4%). Instructions were perceived as simple by patients (> 90%) for saliva and OS. Finally, the painful nature was estimated to be 0.9 for OS, on a scale from 0 to 10, and to be 5.3 for NPS. Performances of OS are not sufficient. Saliva is an acceptable alternative to NPS for symptomatic patient but the process required additional steps to fluidize the sample.