AIMS: The aim was to compare blood volume estimations using trivalent chromium [(51)Cr(III)] and standard Evans blue dye (EBD) method in New Zealand white rabbit models and establish correction-factor (CF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Blood volume estimation in 33 rabbits was carried out using EBD method and concentration determined using spectrophotometric assay followed by blood volume estimation using direct injection of (51)Cr(III). Twenty out of 33 rabbits were used to find CF by dividing blood volume estimation using EBD with blood volume estimation using (51)Cr(III). CF is validated in 13 rabbits by multiplying it with blood volume estimation values obtained using (51)Cr(III).
RESULTS: The mean circulating blood volume of 33 rabbits using EBD was 142.02 ± 22.77 ml or 65.76 ± 9.31 ml/kg and using (51)Cr(III) was estimated to be 195.66 ± 47.30 ml or 89.81 ± 17.88 ml/kg. The CF was found to be 0.77. The mean blood volume of 13 rabbits measured using EBD was 139.54 ± 27.19 ml or 66.33 ± 8.26 ml/kg and using (51)Cr(III) with CF was 152.73 ± 46.25 ml or 71.87 ± 13.81 ml/kg (P = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: The estimation of blood volume using (51)Cr(III) was comparable to standard EBD method using CF. With further research in this direction, we envisage human blood volume estimation using (51)Cr(III) to find its application in acute clinical settings.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 22 March 2016); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 2); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 March 2016); CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 22 March 2016). Due to the ongoing Cochrane project to search EMBASE and add retrieved clinical trials to CENTRAL, we searched only the last 11 months of EMBASE via OVID (1 May 2015 to 22 March 2016). We placed no further restrictions on the language or date of publication. We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/default.aspx). We also checked the reference lists of excluded trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).