Pilot randomized trial of pre-hospital advanced therapies for the control of hemorrhage (PATCH) using pelvic binders

Stop the bleed " - Prehospital bleeding control in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries - A systematic review and clinical practice guideline - A systematic review and clinical practice guideline

PURPOSE

Our aim was to develop new evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for bleeding control in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries in the prehospital setting. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched until June 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for bleeding control in the prehospital setting using manual pressure, haemostatic agents, tourniquets, pelvic stabilisation, or traction splints in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality and bleeding control. Transfusion requirements and haemodynamic stability were surrogate outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified. Interventions covered were pelvic binders (n = 4 studies), pressure dressings (n = 1), tourniquets (n = 6), traction splints (n = 1), haemostatic agents (n = 3), and nasal balloon catheters (n = 1). Fourteen new recommendations were developed. All achieved strong consensus.

CONCLUSION

Bleeding control is the basic objective of treatment. This can be easily justified based on empirical evidence. There is, however, a lack of reliable and high-quality studies that assess and compare methods for bleeding control in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries. The guideline provides reasonable and practical recommendations (although mostly with a low grade of recommendation) and also reveals several open research questions that can hopefully be answered when the guideline is revised again.

Identification and Management of Pelvic Fractures in Prehospital and Emergency Department Settings

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to describe the characteristics of patients with a pelvic fracture treated at a level 1 trauma center, the proportion of prehospital undertriage and the use of pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Prehospital and inhospital medical records of adults (≥16 y old) with a pelvic fracture who were treated at Hopital de l'Enfant-Jesus-CHU de Québec (Quebec City, Canada), a university-affiliated level 1 trauma center, between September 01, 2017 and September 01, 2021 were reviewed. Isolated hip or pubic ramus fracture were excluded. Data are presented using proportions and means with standard deviations.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients were included (males: 62.3%; mean age: 54.6 [standard deviation 21.1]). Motor vehicle collision (47.4%) was the main mechanism of injury followed by high-level fall (21.5%). Approximately a third (34.2%) needed at least one blood transfusion. Compared to those admitted directly, transferred patients were more likely to be male (73.0% versus 51.3%, P < 0.001) and to have a surgical procedure performed at the trauma center (71.3% versus 46.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of prehospital undertriage was 22.6%. Overall, 17.1% had an open-book fracture and would have potentially benefited from a prehospital PCCD. Forty-six transferred patients had a PCCD applied at the referral hospital of which 26.1% needed adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic fractures are challenging to identify in the prehospital environment and are associated with a high undertriage of 22.6%. Reducing undertriage and optimizing the use of PCCD are key opportunities to improve care of patients with a pelvic fracture.

Enhancing Trauma Care: A Machine Learning Approach with XGBoost for Predicting Urgent Hemorrhage Interventions Using NTDB Data

OBJECTIVE

Trauma is a leading cause of death worldwide, with many incidents resulting in hemorrhage before the patient reaches the hospital. Despite advances in trauma care, the majority of deaths occur within the first three hours of hospital admission, offering a very limited window for effective intervention. Unfortunately, a significant increase in mortality from hemorrhagic trauma is primarily due to delays in hemorrhage control. Therefore, we propose a machine learning model to predict the need for urgent hemorrhage intervention.

METHODS

This study developed and validated an XGBoost-based machine learning model using data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2017 to 2019. It focuses on demographic and clinical data from the initial hours following trauma for model training and validation, aiming to predict whether trauma patients require urgent hemorrhage intervention.

RESULTS

The XGBoost model demonstrated superior performance across multiple datasets, achieving an AUROC of 0.872 on the training set, 0.869 on the internal validation set, and 0.875 on the external validation set. The model also showed high sensitivity (77.8% on the external validation set) and specificity (82.1% on the external validation set), with an accuracy exceeding 81% across all datasets, highlighting its high reliability for clinical applications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the XGBoost model effectively predicts urgent hemorrhage interventions using data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). It outperforms other machine learning algorithms in accuracy and robustness across various datasets. These results highlight machine learning's potential to improve emergency responses and decision-making in trauma care.

Temporal changes in the prehospital management of trauma patients: 2014-2021

INTRODUCTION

Aggressive prehospital interventions (PHI) in trauma may not improve outcomes compared to prioritizing rapid transport. The aim of this study was to quantify temporal changes in the frequency of PHI performed by EMS.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of adult patients transported by EMS to our trauma center from January 1, 2014 to 12/31/2021. PHI were recorded and annual changes in their frequency were assessed via year-by-year trend analysis and multivariate regression.

RESULTS

Between the first and last year of the study period, the frequency of thoracostomy (6% vs. 9%, p ​= ​0.001), TXA administration (0.3% vs. 33%, p ​< ​0.001), and whole blood administration (0% vs. 20%, p ​< ​0.001) increased. Advanced airway procedures (21% vs. 12%, p ​< ​0.001) and IV fluid administration (57% vs. 36%, p ​< ​0.001) decreased. ED mortality decreased from 8% to 5% (p ​= ​0.001) over the study period. On multivariate regression, no PHI were independently associated with increased or decreased ED mortality.

CONCLUSION

PHI have changed significantly over the past eight years. However, no PHI were independently associated with increased or decreased ED mortality.

Imposter or knight in shining armor? Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) for severe pelvic injuries in patients with multiple trauma: a trauma-registry analysis

BACKGROUND

Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices (PCCD) are standard in hemorrhage-control of unstable pelvic ring fractures (UPF). Controversial data on their usefulness exists. Aim of the study was to investigate whether prehospital application of PCCD can reduce mortality and transfusion requirements in UPF.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study. From 2016 until 2021, 63,371 adult severely injured patients were included into TraumaRegister DGU® of the German Trauma Society (TR-DGU). We analyzed PCCD use over time and compared patients with multiple trauma patients and UPF, who received prehospital PCCD to those who did not (noPCCD). Groups were adjusted for risk of prehospital PCCD application by propensity score matching. Primary endpoints were hospital mortality, standardized mortality rate (SMR) and transfusion requirements.

RESULTS

Overall UPF incidence was 9% (N = 5880) and PCCD use increased over time (7.5% to 20.4%). Of all cases with UPF, 40.2% received PCCD and of all cases with PCCD application, 61% had no pelvic injury at all. PCCD patients were more severely injured and had higher rates of shock or transfusion. 24-h.-mortality and hospital mortality were higher with PCCD (10.9% vs. 9.3%; p = 0.033; 17.9% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.070). Hospital mortality with PCCD was 1% lower than predicted. SMR was in favor of PCCD but failed statistical significance (0.95 vs. 1.04, p = 0.101). 1,860 propensity score matched pairs were analyzed: NoPCCD-patients received more often catecholamines (19.6% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.043) but required less surgical pelvic stabilization in the emergency room (28.6% vs. 36.8%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality or transfusion requirements.

CONCLUSION

We observed PCCD overuse in general and underuse in UPF. Prehospital PCCD appears to be more a marker of injury severity and less triggered by presence of UPF. We found no salutary effect on survival or transfusion requirements. Inappropriate indication and technical flaw may have biased our results. TR-DGU does not contain data on these aspects. Further studies are necessary. Modular add-on questioners to the registry could offer one possible solution to overcome this limitation. We are concerned that PCCD use may be unfairly discredited by misinterpretation of the available evidence and strongly vote for a prospective trial.

Traumatic hemorrhage and chain of survival

Trauma is the number one cause of death among Americans between the ages of 1 and 46 years, costing more than $670 billion a year. Following death related to central nervous system injury, hemorrhage accounts for the majority of remaining traumatic fatalities. Among those with severe trauma that reach the hospital alive, many may survive if the hemorrhage and traumatic injuries are diagnosed and adequately treated in a timely fashion. This article aims to review the recent advances in pathophysiology management following a traumatic hemorrhage as well as the role of diagnostic imaging in identifying the source of hemorrhage. The principles of damage control resuscitation and damage control surgery are also discussed. The chain of survival for severe hemorrhage begins with primary prevention; however, once trauma has occurred, prehospital interventions and hospital care with early injury recognition, resuscitation, definitive hemostasis, and achieving endpoints of resuscitation become paramount. An algorithm is proposed for achieving these goals in a timely fashion as the median time from onset of hemorrhagic shock and death is 2 h.

[The chapters "Stop the bleed-prehospital" and "Coagulation management and volume therapy (emergency departement)" in the new S3 guideline "Polytrauma/severe injury treatment"]

The S3 guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries by the German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies was updated between 2020 and 2022. This article describes the essence of the new chapter "Stop the bleed-prehospital" and the revised chapter "Coagulation management and volume therapy".

Pelvic fracture-related hypotension: A review of contemporary adjuncts for hemorrhage control

ABSTRACT

Major pelvic hemorrhage remains a considerable challenge of modern trauma care associated with mortality in over a third of patients. Efforts to improve outcomes demand continued research into the optimal employment of both traditional and newer hemostatic adjuncts across the full spectrum of emergent care environments. The purpose of this review is to provide a concise description of the rationale for and effective use of currently available adjuncts for the control of pelvic hemorrhage. In addition, the challenges of defining the optimal order and algorithm for employment of these adjuncts will be outlined.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Review, level IV.

Randomised controlled trials in pre-hospital trauma: a systematic mapping review

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with about 5.8 million deaths globally and the leading cause of death in those aged 45 and younger. The pre-hospital phase of traumatic injury is particularly important as care received during this phase has effects on survival. The need for high quality clinical trials in this area has been recognised for several years as a key priority to improve the evidence base and, ultimately, clinical care in prehospital trauma. We aimed to systematically map the existing evidence base for pre-hospital trauma trials, to identify knowledge gaps and inform decisions about the future research agenda.

METHODS

A systematic mapping review was conducted first employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 23rd 2020) to identify randomised controlled trials within the pre-hospital trauma and injury setting. The evidence 'map' identified and described the characteristics of included studies and compared these studies against existing priorities for research. Narrative description of studies informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics was completed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three eligible studies, including 10,405 participants across 14 countries, were identified and included in the systematic map. No clear temporal or geographical trends in publications were identified. Studies were categorised into six broad categories based on intervention type with evaluations of fluid therapy and analgesia making up 60% of the included trials. Overall, studies were heterogenous with regard to individual interventions within categories and outcomes reported. There was poor reporting across several studies. No studies reported patient involvement in the design or conduct of the trials.

CONCLUSION

This mapping review has highlighted that evidence from trials in prehospital trauma is sparse and where trials have been completed, the reporting is generally poor and study designs sub-optimal. There is a continued need, and significant scope, for improvement in a setting where high quality evidence has great potential to make a demonstrable impact on care and outcomes.