English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Recent advances in our approach to blood component therapy in traumatic hemorrhage have resulted in a reassessment of many of the tenants of management which were considered standards of therapy for many years. Indeed, despite the use of damage control techniques, the mortality from trauma induced coagulopathy has not changed significantly over the past 30 years. More specifically, a resurgence of interest in postinjury hemostasis has generated controversies in three primary areas: 1) The pathogenesis of trauma induced coagulopathy 2) The optimal ratio of blood components administered via a pre-emptive schedule for patients at risk for this condition, ("damage control resuscitation"), and 3) The appropriate use of monitoring mechanisms of coagulation function during the phase of active management of trauma induced coaguopathy, which we have previously termed "goal directed therapy". Accordingly, recent experience from both military and civilian centers have begun to address these controversies, with certain management trends emerging which appear to significantly impact the way we approach these patients.

Unanswered questions in the use of blood component therapy in trauma