↓ Skip to main content

A Review of Blood Substitutes: Examining The History, Clinical Trial Results, and Ethics of Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 1,215)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
patent
9 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Review of Blood Substitutes: Examining The History, Clinical Trial Results, and Ethics of Hemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers
Published in
Clinics, August 2009
DOI 10.1590/s1807-59322009000800016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiin-Yu Chen, Michelle Scerbo, George Kramer

Abstract

The complications associated with acquiring and storing whole blood for transfusions have launched substantial efforts to develop a blood substitute. The history of these efforts involves a complicated mixture of science, ethics, and business. This review focuses on clinical trials of the three hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOC) that have progressed to Phase II or III clinical trials: He-mAssist (Baxter; Deerfield, IL, US), PolyHeme (Northfield; Evanston, IL, US), and Hemopure (Biopure; Cambridge, MA, US). Published animal studies and clinical trials carried out in a perioperative setting have demonstrated that these products successfully transport and deliver oxygen, but all may induce hypertension and lead to unexpectedly low cardiac outputs. Overall, these studies suggest that HBOCs resulted in only modest blood saving during and after surgery, no improvement in mortality and an increased incidence of adverse reactions. To date, the results from these perioperative studies have not led to regulatory approval. All three companies instead chose to focus their efforts on large trials of trauma patients in the pre-hospital setting.Baxter abandoned the development of HemAssist after a trial in the U.S. was prematurely halted when the first 100 patients showed significantly increased mortality rates as compared to patients treated with blood products. Northfield's PolyHeme trial demonstrated a non-significant trend towards increased mortality and a very modest reduction in the subsequent need for blood. The testing of Biopure's Hemopure for trauma patients has been halted for several years because of FDA concerns over trial design and study justification. Ethical concerns have also been raised regarding the design and implementation of all HBOC clinical trials.Thus, the available evidence suggests that HemAssist, Polyheme, and Hemopure are associated with a significant level of cardiovascular dysfunction. The next generation of HBOCs remains under development.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 221 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 18%
Student > Master 35 15%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 46 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 20%
Engineering 25 11%
Chemistry 25 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 10%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 56 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2022.
All research outputs
#512,726
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#18
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,199
of 122,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 122,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.