RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To improve survival for hemorrhagic shock treatment, guidelines emphasize two patient care priorities: (1) immediate hemorrhage control and (2) early resuscitation with whole blood or blood products. The LifeFlow device is designed to rapidly infuse blood products. However, the effects of using this device compared to pressure-bag systems remain unclear. We hypothesize that there will be no laboratory-measured difference with the blood when infused through the LifeFlow versus the current standard pressure bag system. METHODS: Two units of fresh whole blood were obtained from a sus scrofa model. One unit was "infused" using the LifeFlow with the other unit used as a control through a standard pressure bag system into an empty bag. The "before" measurements were obtained from blood samples from a standard fresh whole blood collection bag. The blood was "infused" into a whole blood bag devoid of storage solution from which the "after" measurements were obtained. RESULTS: This study utilized 22 clinically healthy sus scrofa. Blood units were primarily obtained from a left subclavian central line (50.0%). The median time to acquire and administer a unit of blood was similar for both the LifeFlow device (8.4 min and 8.1 min) and the pressure bag (8.7 min and 7.4 min). No significant differences were found in the total time to acquire or administer blood between the two devices. The median volume of blood acquired was 500 mL for both groups. While no significant differences in blood parameters were observed between the two devices, significant differences were noted when comparing pre- and post-transfusion values within each device. For the LifeFlow device, an increase in hemoglobin and chloride levels and a decrease in thromboplastin time and glucose levels were observed. With the pressure bag, only a decrease in blood urea nitrogen was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In comparing the LifeFlow to the pressure bag, there were no significant differences noted in the total time to acquire or administer a whole unit of blood. However, there were differences with several laboratory parameters of unclear clinical significance.