AI Article Synopsis
- The study compares acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH) and hypervolemic hemodilution (HHD) in terms of effectiveness at reducing the need for homologous blood during total hip replacements.
- Both methods involve a similar amount of blood lost and show no significant differences in hemoglobin, hematocrit, or coagulation levels among patients.
- HHD is found to be equally effective as ANH for blood-saving but is simpler to administer, making it a preferable option.
Article Abstract
Problem: Acute normovolenic hemodilution (ANH) is timeconsuming and complicated, and has only a small effect in reducing the need for homologous blood. A simpler procedure is hypervolemic hemodilution (HHD). In the present prospective, randomized study, HHD is compared with ANH for its blood-saving effect.
Study Design: Forty-nine patients undergoing total hip replacement were admitted. Group I (ANH): Withdrawal of 15 ml/kg bodyweight autologous blood and isovolemic replacement by hydroxyethyl starch (200/0.5). Group II (HHD): Infusion of 15 ml/kg bodyweight hydroxyethyl starch (200/0.5).
Results: No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of Hb, hematocrit and coagulation. The blood loss (intra-operative+drainage losses) was comparable in the two groups at 1274 +/- 310 ml (HHD) and 130 +/- 335 ml (ANH). During the period under investigation, 66% of the patients in the HHD group and 57% in the ANH group required no homologous blood.
Conclusion: HHD is just as effective as ANH for reducing homologous blood requirements, and is much simpler to apply.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!