The objective is to reinforce the importance of blood reinfusion as a cheap, safe and simple method, which can be used in small hospitals, especially those in which there is no blood bank. Moreover, even with the use of devices that perform the collection and filtration of blood, more recent studies show that the cost-benefit ratio is much better when autologous transfusion is compared with blood transfusions, even when there is injury to hollow viscera and blood contamination. It is known that the allogeneic blood transfusion carries a number of risks to patients, among them are the coagulation disorders mediated by excess enzymes in the conserved blood, and deficiency in clotting factors, mainly the Factor V, the proacelerin. Another factor would be the risk of contamination with still unknown pathogens or that are not investigated during screening for selection of donors, such as the West Nile Fever and Creutzfeldt-Jacob, better known as "Mad Cow" disease. Comparing both methods, we conclude that blood autotransfusion has numerous advantages over heterologous transfusion, even in large hospitals. We are not against blood transfusions, just do not agree that the patient's own blood is discarded without making sure there will be enough blood in stock to get him out of the hemorrhagic shock.
Blood; Blood Transfusion; Blood Transfusion; Autologous; Abdominal Injuries; Shock, Hemorrhagic
