Rekombinanter Faktor VIIa in der Hämorrhagiebehandlung des Schwerstverletzten

The incidence of thromboembolism formation following the use of recombinant factor VIIa in patients suffering from blunt force trauma compared with penetrating trauma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rapid replacement of blood loss is critical in patients suffering from traumatic hemorrhage. When the availability of blood products is limited, certain interventions have shown promise in conserving blood supplies. Recombinant factor (rF) VIIa has been administered, as an off-label use, to assist in controlling hemorrhage in trauma patients. Although rFVIIa has a tendency to remain localized to areas of vascular insult, there may be an increase in thromboembolism formation when patients suffer multiple sites of injury as seen in blunt force trauma.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the incidence of thromboembolism formation after receiving rFVIIa as an adjunct to hemorrhage control measures (standard resuscitation efforts consisting of varying amounts of packed red blood cells [PRBCs], fresh frozen plasma [FFP], platelets and crystalloid solutions) in patients suffering from traumatic injuries (blunt force and penetrating trauma).

INCLUSION CRITERIA TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

Civilian and combat trauma patients who were 15 years and older suffering from blunt force and penetrating traumatic injuries.

TYPES OF INTERVENTION(S)/PHENOMENA OF INTEREST

Use of rFVIIa as an adjunct to hemorrhage control measures (standard resuscitation efforts consisting of varying amounts of PRBCs, FFP, platelets and crystalloid solutions).

TYPES OF STUDIES

This review considered both experimental and epidemiological study designs.

TYPES OF OUTCOMES

Confirmed formation of thromboembolism (confirmation based on specific diagnostic tests such as ultrasound, ventilation-perfusion scan or angiography).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The databases searched included CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Control Register of Clinical Trials. Studies published after June 1986 were considered for inclusion in this review. Search for unpublished studies was performed.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

Studies selected for inclusion were critically appraised by two independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).

DATA EXTRACTION

Data was extracted from articles using standardized data extraction instruments from the JBI.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Quantitative results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using the Joanna Briggs software for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Two studies with a total of 831 participants were included. Both the studies were randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials. No studies of combat trauma patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. A meta-analysis was performed. In blunt force trauma patients, the incidence of thromboembolism formation on administering rFVIIa revealed an overall relative risk of 1.17 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.77 to 1.79; results not statistically significant (P = 0.4594); large CI and imprecise estimate. In penetrating trauma patients, the incidence of thromboembolism formation on administering rFVIIa revealed an overall relative risk of 0.77 with a 95% CI from 0.27 to 2.20; results not statistically significant (P = 0.6242); very large CI and imprecise estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimates of the effects are imprecise, results are compatible with effects in opposite directions, increase or decrease of thromboembolism formation, and an increase of thromboembolism formation cannot be excluded.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

When rFVIIa is administered to trauma patients, there does not appear to be an increased risk of thromboembolism formation favoring one type of injury over the other (blunt force versus penetrating trauma). Owing to large CIs and imprecise estimates, the overall risk of thromboembolism cannot be excluded. The use of rFVIIa does appear to decrease the overall need for blood products in trauma patients with no statistically significant improvement in survival rates. With the high cost of rFVIIa, its use is limited to those facilities that can afford it. In situations wherein blood supply is limited, rFVIIa could conserve limited supplies of blood products with no difference in thromboembolism risk between blunt force versus penetrating trauma, but the high cost will ultimately limit its use to facilities that can afford it. The use of rFVIIa in blunt force and penetrating trauma patients has a JBI Grade B Recommendation (Appendix I).

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

This review excluded patients receiving pharmacologic anticoagulation such as warfarin sodium or heparin. The actions of these drugs will most likely counteract the desired coagulation effect of rFVIIa. Many studies do not account for the effects of rFVIIa in trauma patients receiving pharmacologic anticoagulation and this could be a future area of research.

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition

BACKGROUND

Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution.

METHODS

The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013.

RESULTS

The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.

Risk stratification in trauma and haemorrhagic shock: scoring systems derived from the TraumaRegister DGU(®)

Scoring systems commonly attempt to reduce complex clinical situations into one-dimensional values by objectively valuing and combining a variety of clinical aspects. The aim is to allow for a comparison of selected patients or cohorts. To appreciate the true value of scoring systems in patients with multiple injuries it is necessary to understand the different purposes of quantifying the severity of specific injuries and overall trauma load, being: (1) clinical decision making; (2) triage; (3) planning of trauma systems and resources; (4) epidemiological and clinical research; (5) evaluation of outcome and trauma systems, including quality assessment; and (6) estimation of costs and allocation of resources. For the first two, easy-to estimate scores with immediate availability are necessary, mainly based on initial physiology. More sophisticated scores considering age, gender, injury pattern/severity and more are usually used for research and outcome evaluation, once the diagnostic and therapeutic process has been completed. For score development large numbers of data are necessary and thus, it appears as a logical consequence that large registries as the TraumaRegister DGU(®) of the German Trauma Society (TR-DGU) are used to derive and validate clinical scoring systems. A variety of scoring systems have been derived from this registry, the majority of them with focus on hospital mortality. The most important among these systems is probably the RISC score, which is currently used for quality assessment and outcome adjustment in the annual audit reports. This report summarizes the various scoring systems derived from the TraumaRegister DGU(®) over the recent years.

Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients

INTRODUCTION

Physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are a well-established component of prehospital trauma care in Germany. Reduced rescue times and increased catchment area represent presumable specific advantages of HEMS. In contrast, the availability of HEMS is connected to a high financial burden and depends on the weather, day time and controlled visual flight rules. To date, clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of HEMS in terms of improved clinical outcome has remained elusive.

METHODS

Traumatized patients (Injury Severity Score; ISS≥9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2007 and 2009 were analyzed using the TraumaRegister DGU® of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. Only patients treated in German level I and II trauma centers with complete data referring to the transportation mode were included. Complications during hospital treatment included sepsis and organ failure according to the criteria of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) consensus conference committee and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.

RESULTS

A total of 13,220 patients with traumatic injuries were included in the present study. Of these, 62.3% (n=8,231) were transported by GEMS and 37.7% (n=4,989) by HEMS. Patients treated by HEMS were more seriously injured compared to GEMS (ISS 26.0 vs. 23.7, P<0.001) with more severe chest and abdominal injuries. The extent of medical treatment on-scene, which involved intubation, chest and treatment with vasopressors, was more extensive in HEMS (P<0.001) resulting in prolonged on-scene time (39.5 vs. 28.9 minutes, P<0.001). During their clinical course, HEMS patients more frequently developed multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) (HEMS: 33.4% vs. GEMS: 25.0%; P<0.001) and sepsis (HEMS: 8.9% vs. GEMS: 6.6%, P<0.001) resulting in an increased length of ICU treatment and in-hospital time (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that after adjustment by 11 other variables the odds ratio for mortality in HEMS was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.636 to 862).

CONCLUSIONS

Although HEMS patients were more seriously injured and had a significantly higher incidence of MODS and sepsis, these patients demonstrated a survival benefit compared to GEMS.