Comparison of Fluid Types for Resuscitation in Acute Hemorrhagic Shock and Evaluation of Gastric Luminal and Transcutaneous P co 2 in Leghorn Chickens

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of 3 different fluid types for resuscitation after experimentally induced hemorrhagic shock in anesthetized chickens and to evaluate partial pressures of carbon dioxide measured in arterial blood (Paco2), with a transcutaneous monitor (TcPco2), with a gastric intraluminal monitor (GiPco2), and by end tidal measurements (Etco2) under stable conditions and after induced hemorrhagic shock. Hemorrhagic shock was induced in 40 white leghorn chickens by removing 50% of blood volume by phlebotomy under general anesthesia. Birds were divided into 4 groups: untreated (control group) and treated with intravenous hetastarch (haes group), with a hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier (hemospan group), or by autotransfusion (blood group). Respiratory rates, heart rates, and systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) were compared at 8 time points (baseline [T0]; at the loss of 10% [T10%], 20% [T20%], 30% [T30%], 40% [T40%], and 50% [T50%] of blood volume; at the end of resuscitation [RES]; and at the end of anesthesia [END]). Packed cell volume (PCV) and blood hemoglobin content were compared at 6 time points (T0, T50%, RES, and 1, 3, and 7 days after induced hemorrhagic shock). Measurements of Paco2, TcPco2, GiPco2, and Etco2 were evaluated at 2 time points (T0 and T50%), and venous lactic acid concentrations were evaluated at 3 time points (T0, T50%, and END). No significant differences were found in mortality, respiratory rate, heart rate, PCV, or hemoglobin values among the 4 groups. Birds given fluid resuscitation had significantly higher SAPs after fluid administration than did birds in the control group. In all groups, PCV and hemoglobin concentrations began to rise by day 3 after phlebotomy, and baseline values were reached 7 days after blood removal. At T0, TcPco2 did not differ significantly from Paco2, but GiPco2 and Etco2 differed significantly from Paco2. After hemorrhagic shock, GiPco2 and TcPco2 differed significantly from Paco2. The TcPco2 or GiPco2 values did not differ significantly at any time point in birds that survived or died in any of the groups and across all groups. These results showed no difference in mortality in leghorn chickens treated with fluid resuscitation after hemorrhagic shock and that the PCV and hemoglobin concentrations increased by 3 days after acute hemorrhage with or without treatment. The different CO2 measurements document changes in CO2-values consistent with poor perfusion and may prove useful for serial evaluation of responses to shock and shock treatment.

A comment on the article “A collinearity diagnosis of the GNSS geocenter determination” by P. Rebischung, Z. Altamimi, and T. Springer

Meindl et al. (Adv Space Res 51(7):1047–1064, 2013) showed that the geocenter z -component estimated from observations of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) is strongly correlated to a particular parameter of the solar radiation pressure (SRP) model developed by Beutler et al. (Manuscr Geod 19:367–386, 1994). They analyzed the forces caused by SRP and the impact on the satellites’ orbits. The authors achieved their results using perturbation theory and celestial mechanics. Rebischung et al. (J Geod doi:10.1016/j.asr.2012.10.026, 2013) also deal with the geocenter determination with GNSS. The authors carried out a collinearity diagnosis of the associated parameter estimation problem. They conclude “without much exaggerating that current GNSS are insensitive to any component of geocenter motion”. They explain this inability by the high degree of collinearity of the geocenter coordinates mainly with satellite clock corrections. Based on these results and additional experiments, they state that the conclusions drawn by Meindl et al. (Adv Space Res 51(7):1047–1064, 2013) are questionable. We do not agree with these conclusions and present our arguments in this article. In the first part, we review and highlight the main characteristics of the studies performed by Meindl et al. (Adv Space Res 51(7):1047–1064, 2013) to show that the experiments are quite different from those performed by Rebischung et al. (J Geod doi:10.1016/j.asr.2012.10.026,2013) . In the second part, we show that normal equation (NEQ) systems are regular when estimating geocenter coordinates, implying that the covariance matrices associated with the NEQ systems may be used to assess the sensitivity to geocenter coordinates in a standard way. The sensitivity of GNSS to the components of the geocenter is discussed. Finally, we comment on the arguments raised by Rebischung et al. (J Geod doi:10.1016/j.asr.2012.10.026, 2013) against the results of Meindl et al. (Adv Space Res 51(7):1047–1064, 2013).