Clinical decision support for severe trauma patients: Machine learning based definition of a bundle of care for hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury

Current knowledge and availability of machine learning across the spectrum of trauma science

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent technological advances have accelerated the use of Machine Learning in trauma science. This review provides an overview on the available evidence for research and patient care. The review aims to familiarize clinicians with this rapidly evolving field, offer perspectives, and identify existing and future challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

The available evidence predominantly focuses on retrospective algorithm construction to predict outcomes. Few studies have explored actionable outcomes, workflow integration, or the impact on patient care. Machine Learning and data science have the potential to simplify data capture and enhance counterfactual causal inference research from observational data to address complex issues. However, regulatory, legal, and ethical challenges associated with the use of Machine Learning in trauma care deserve particular attention.

SUMMARY

Machine Learning holds promise for actionable decision support in trauma science, but rigorous proof-of-concept studies are urgently needed. Future research should assess workflow integration, human-machine interaction, and, most importantly, the impact on patient outcome. Machine Learning enhanced causal inference for observational data carries an enormous potential to change trauma research as complement to randomized studies. The scientific trauma community needs to engage with the existing challenges to drive progress in the field.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning for hemorrhagic trauma care

Artificial intelligence (AI), a branch of machine learning (ML) has been increasingly employed in the research of trauma in various aspects. Hemorrhage is the most common cause of trauma-related death. To better elucidate the current role of AI and contribute to future development of ML in trauma care, we conducted a review focused on the use of ML in the diagnosis or treatment strategy of traumatic hemorrhage. A literature search was carried out on PubMed and Google scholar. Titles and abstracts were screened and, if deemed appropriate, the full articles were reviewed. We included 89 studies in the review. These studies could be grouped into five areas: (1) prediction of outcomes; (2) risk assessment and injury severity for triage; (3) prediction of transfusions; (4) detection of hemorrhage; and (5) prediction of coagulopathy. Performance analysis of ML in comparison with current standards for trauma care showed that most studies demonstrated the benefits of ML models. However, most studies were retrospective, focused on prediction of mortality, and development of patient outcome scoring systems. Few studies performed model assessment via test datasets obtained from different sources. Prediction models for transfusions and coagulopathy have been developed, but none is in widespread use. AI-enabled ML-driven technology is becoming integral part of the whole course of trauma care. Comparison and application of ML algorithms using different datasets from initial training, testing and validation in prospective and randomized controlled trials are warranted for provision of decision support for individualized patient care as far forward as possible.

Prognosis prediction in traumatic brain injury patients using machine learning algorithms

Predicting treatment outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients is challenging worldwide. The present study aimed to achieve the most accurate machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict the outcomes of TBI treatment by evaluating demographic features, laboratory data, imaging indices, and clinical features. We used data from 3347 patients admitted to a tertiary trauma centre in Iran from 2016 to 2021. After the exclusion of incomplete data, 1653 patients remained. We used ML algorithms such as random forest (RF) and decision tree (DT) with ten-fold cross-validation to develop the best prediction model. Our findings reveal that among different variables included in this study, the motor component of the Glasgow coma scale, the condition of pupils, and the condition of cisterns were the most reliable features for predicting in-hospital mortality, while the patients' age takes the place of cisterns condition when considering the long-term survival of TBI patients. Also, we found that the RF algorithm is the best model to predict the short-term mortality of TBI patients. However, the generalized linear model (GLM) algorithm showed the best performance (with an accuracy rate of 82.03 ± 2.34) in predicting the long-term survival of patients. Our results showed that using appropriate markers and with further development, ML has the potential to predict TBI patients' survival in the short- and long-term.

Septic Shock: Phenotypes and Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome that results in life-threatening organ dysfunction. Our goal was to determine the relevant variables and patient phenotypes to use in predicting sepsis outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an ancillary study concerning 119 patients with septic shock at intensive care unit (ICU) admittance (T0). We defined clinical worsening as having an increased sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of ≥ 1, 48 h after admission (ΔSOFA ≥ 1). We performed univariate and multivariate analyses based on the 28-day mortality rate and ΔSOFA ≥ 1 and determined three patient phenotypes: safe, intermediate and unsafe. The persistence of the intermediate and unsafe phenotypes after T0 was defined as a poor outcome.

RESULTS

At T0, the multivariate analysis showed two variables associated with 28-day mortality rate: norepinephrine dose and serum lactate concentration. Regarding ΔSOFA ≥ 1, we identified three variables at T0: norepinephrine dose, lactate concentration and venous-to-arterial carbon dioxide difference (P(v-a)CO₂). At T0, the three phenotypes (safe, intermediate and unsafe) were found in 28 (24%), 70 (59%) and 21 (18%) patients, respectively. We thus suggested using an algorithm featuring norepinephrine dose, lactate concentration and P(v-a)CO₂ to predict patient outcomes and obtained an area under the curve (AUC) of 74% (63-85%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the fact that identifying relevant variables and phenotypes may help physicians predict patient outcomes.

Multicentre observational study on practice of prehospital management of hypotensive trauma patients: the SPITFIRE study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Major haemorrhage after injury is the leading cause of preventable death for trauma patients. Recent advancements in trauma care suggest damage control resuscitation (DCR) should start in the prehospital phase following major trauma. In Italy, Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) assist the most complex injuries and deliver the most advanced interventions including DCR. The effect size of DCR delivered prehospitally on survival remains however unclear.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an investigator-initiated, large, national, prospective, observational cohort study aiming to recruit >500 patients in haemorrhagic shock after major trauma. We aim at describing the current practice of hypotensive trauma management as well as propose the creation of a national registry of patients with haemorrhagic shock.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

the exploration of the effect size of the variation in clinical practice on the mortality of hypotensive trauma patients. The primary outcome measure will be 24 hours, 7-day and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include: association of prehospital factors and survival from injury to hospital admission, hospital length of stay, prehospital and in-hospital complications, hospital outcomes; use of prehospital ultrasound; association of prehospital factors and volume of first 24-hours blood product administration and evaluation of the prevalence of use, appropriateness, haemodynamic, metabolic and effects on mortality of prehospital blood transfusions.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

age >18 years, traumatic injury attended by a HEMS team including a physician, a systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or weak/absent radial pulse and a confirmed or clinically likely diagnosis of major haemorrhage. Prehospital and in-hospital variables will be collected to include key times, clinical findings, examinations and interventions. Patients will be followed-up until day 30 from admission. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended will be collected at 30 days from admission.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Ethics committee 'Comitato Etico di Area Vasta Emilia Centro'. Data will be disseminated to the scientific community by abstracts submitted to international conferences and by original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04760977.