Thromboelastography does not provide additional information to guide resuscitation in the severely injured

Does Liberal Prehospital and In-Hospital Tranexamic Acid Influence Outcome in Severely Injured Patients? A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Early hemorrhage control is important in trauma-related death prevention. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has shown to be beneficial in patients in hemorrhagic shock, although widespread adoption might result in incorrect TXA administration leading to increased morbidity and mortality.

Methods

A 7-year prospective cohort study with consecutive trauma patients admitted to a Level-1 Trauma Center ICU was performed to investigate administration of both pre- and in-hospital TXA and its relation to morbidity and mortality. Indication for prehospital and in-hospital TXA administration was (suspicion of) hemorrhagic shock, and/or systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 90 mmHg. Demographics, data on physiology, resuscitation and outcomes were prospectively collected.

Results

Four hundred and twenty-two patients (71% males, median ISS 29, 95% blunt injuries) were included. Even though TXA patients were more severely injured with more deranged physiology, no differences in outcome were noted. Overall, thrombo-embolic complication rate was 8%. In half the patients, hemorrhagic shock was the indication for prehospital TXA, whereas 79% of in-hospital TXA was given based on suspicion of hemorrhagic shock. Thirteen percent of patients with SBP ≤ 90 mmHg in ED received no TXA at all. Based on SBP alone, 22% of prehospital TXA and 25% of in-hospital TXA were justified.

Conclusions

Despite being more severely injured, TXA patients had similar outcome compared to patients without TXA. Thrombo-embolic complication rate was low despite liberal use of both prehospital and in-hospital TXA. Caution should be exercised in selecting patients for TXA, although this might be challenging based on SBP alone in patients who do not yet show signs of deranged physiology on arrival in ED.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-021-06143-y.

Massive transfusion in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) may improve survival in patients with uncontrolled haemorrhage. An MTP was introduced into the Dutch transfusion guidelines in 2011, the ninth edition of the advanced trauma life support course in 2012 and the third version of the European guideline in 2013. This is the first survey of MTPs in Dutch trauma centres.

METHODS

The aim of the study was to compare MTP strategies in level 1 trauma centres in The Netherlands, and with (inter)national guidelines. A contact in each government assigned level 1 trauma centre in The Netherlands and the Dutch Ministry of Defence was approached to share their MTPs and elucidate their protocol in a survey and oral follow-up interview.

RESULTS

All 11 level 1 trauma centres responded. The content of the packages and transfusion ratios (red blood cells/plasma/platelets) were 3:3:1, 5:5:1, 5:3:1, 2:3:1, 4:4:1, 5:2:1, 2:2:1 and 4:3:1. Tranexamic acid was used in all centres and an additional dose was administered in eight centres. Fibrinogen was given directly (n=4), with persistent bleeding (n=3), based on Clauss fibrinogen (n=3) or rotational thromboelastometry (n=1). All centres used additional medication in patients in the form of anticoagulants, but their use was ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

MTPs differed between institutes and guidelines. The discrepancies in transfusion ratios can be explained by (inter)national differences in preparation and volume of blood components and/or interpretation of the '1:1:1' guideline. We recommend updating MTPs every year using the latest guidelines and evaluating the level of evidence for treatment during massive transfusion.

Timing of major fracture care in polytrauma patients - An update on principles, parameters and strategies for 2020

OBJECTIVES

Sustained changes in resuscitation and transfusion management have been observed since the turn of the millennium, along with an ongoing discussion of surgical management strategies. The aims of this study are threefold: a) to evaluate the objective changes in resuscitation and mass transfusion protocols undertaken in major level I trauma centers; b) to summarize the improvements in diagnostic options for early risk profiling in multiply injured patients and c) to assess the improvements in surgical treatment for acute major fractures in the multiply injured patient.

METHODS

I. A systematic review of the literature (comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases) and a concomitant data base (from a single Level I center) analysis were performed. Two authors independently extracted data using a pre-designed form. A pooled analysis was performed to determine the changes in the management of polytraumatized patients after the change of the millennium. II. A data base from a level I trauma center was utilized to test any effects of treatment changes on outcome.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

adult patients, ISS > 16, admission < less than 24 h post trauma. Exclusion: Oncological diseases, genetic disorders that affect the musculoskeletal system. Parameters evaluated were mortality, ICU stay, ICU complications (Sepsis, Pneumonia, Multiple organ failure).

RESULTS

I. From the electronic databases, 5141 articles were deemed to be relevant. 169 articles met the inclusion criteria and a manual review of reference lists of key articles identified an additional 22 articles. II. Out of 3668 patients, 2694 (73.4%) were male, the mean ISS was 28.2 (SD 15.1), mean NISS was 37.2 points (SD 17.4 points) and the average length of stay was 17.0 days (SD 18.7 days) with a mean length of ICU stay of 8.2 days (SD 10.5 days), and a mean ventilation time of 5.1 days (SD 8.1 days). Both surgical management and nonsurgical strategies have changed over time. Damage control resuscitation, dynamic analyses of coagulopathy and lactate clearance proved to sharpen the view of the worsening trauma patient and facilitated the prevention of further complications. The subsequent surgical care has become safer and more balanced, avoiding overzealous initial surgeries, while performing early fixation, when patients are physiologically stable or rapidly improving. Severe chest trauma and soft tissue injuries require further evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple changes in management (resuscitation, transfusion protocols and balanced surgical care) have taken place. Moreover, improvement in mortality rates and complications associated with several factors were also observed. These findings support the view that the management of polytrauma patients has been substantially improved over the past 3 decades.