A multi-institutional analysis of prehospital tourniquet use.

BACKGROUND: Recent military studies demonstrated an association between prehospital tourniquet use and increased survival. The benefits of this prehospital intervention in a civilian population remain unclear. The aims of our study were to evaluate tourniquet use in the civilian population and to compare outcomes to previously published military experience. We hypothesized that incorporation of tourniquet use in the civilian population will result in an overall improvement in mortality. METHODS: This is a preliminary multi-institutional retrospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet (MIA-T) use of patients admitted to nine urban Level 1 trauma centers from January 2010 to December 2013. Patient demographics and mortality from a previous military experience by Kragh et al. (Ann Surg. 2009;249:1-7) were used for comparison. Patients younger than 18 years or with nontraumatic bleeding requiring tourniquet application were excluded. Data were analyzed using a two-tailed unpaired Student's t test with p < 0.05 as significant. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were included. Tourniquets were applied effectively in 175 (88.8%) of 197 patients. The average Injury Severity Score (ISS) for MIA-T versus military was 11 ± 12.5 versus 14 ± 10.5, respectively (p = 0.02). The overall mortality and limb amputation rates for the MIA-T group were significantly lower than previously seen in the military population at 6 (3.0%) of 197 versus 22 (11.3%) of 194 (p = 0.002) and 37 (18.8%) of 197 versus 97 (41.8%) of 232 (p = 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study is the largest evaluation of prehospital tourniquet use in a civilian population to date. We found that tourniquets were applied safely and effectively in the civilian population. Adaptation of this prehospital intervention may convey a survival benefit in the civilian population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level V.

Fluid Resuscitation for Hemorrhagic Shock in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 14-01--2 June 2014.

This report reviews the recent literature on fluid resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock and considers the applicability of this evidence for use in resuscitation of combat casualties in the prehospital Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) environment. A number of changes to the TCCC Guidelines are incorporated: (1) dried plasma (DP) is added as an option when other blood components or whole blood are not available; (2) the wording is clarified to emphasize that Hextend is a less desirable option than whole blood, blood components, or DP and should be used only when these preferred options are not available; (3) the use of blood products in certain Tactical Field Care (TFC) settings where this option might be feasible (ships, mounted patrols) is discussed; (4) 1:1:1 damage control resuscitation (DCR) is preferred to 1:1 DCR when platelets are available as well as plasma and red cells; and (5) the 30-minute wait between increments of resuscitation fluid administered to achieve clinical improvement or target blood pressure (BP) has been eliminated. Also included is an order of precedence for resuscitation fluid options. Maintained as recommendations are an emphasis on hypotensive resuscitation in order to minimize (1) interference with the body's hemostatic response and (2) the risk of complications of overresuscitation. Hextend is retained as the preferred option over crystalloids when blood products are not available because of its smaller volume and the potential for long evacuations in the military setting.

To TQIP or not to TQIP? That is the question.

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) reports a feasible mortality prediction model. We hypothesize that our institutional characteristics differ from TQIP aggregate data, questioning its applicability. We conducted a 2-year (2008 to 2009) retrospective analysis of all trauma activations at a Level 1 trauma center. Data were analyzed using TQIP methodology (three groups: blunt single system, blunt multisystem, and penetrating) to develop a mortality prediction model using multiple logistic regression. These data were compared with TQIP data. Four hundred fifty-seven patients met TQIP inclusion criteria. Penetrating and blunt trauma differed significantly at our institution versus TQIP aggregates (61.9 vs 7.8%; 38.0 vs 92.2%, P < 0.01). There were more firearm mechanisms of injury and less falls compared with TQIP aggregates (28.9 vs 4.2%; 8.5 vs 34.8%, P < 0.01). All other mechanisms were not significantly different. Variables significant in the TQIP model but not found to be predictors of mortality included Glasgow Coma Score motor 2 to 5, systolic blood pressure greater than 90 mmHg, age, initial pulse rate in the emergency department, mechanism of injury, head Abbreviated Injury Score, and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Score. External benchmarking of trauma center performance using mortality prediction models is important in quality improvement for trauma patient care. From our results, TQIP methodology from the pilot study may not be applicable to all institutions.

Impact of infusion rates of fresh frozen plasma and platelets during the first 180 minutes of resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Whether high-ratio resuscitation (HRR) provides patients with survival advantage remains controversial. We hypothesized a direct correlation between HRR infusion rates in the first 180 minutes of resuscitation and survival. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of massively transfused trauma patients surviving more than 30 minutes and undergoing surgery at a level 1 trauma center. Mean infusion rates (MIR) of packed red blood cells (PRBC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and platelets (Plt) were calculated for length of intervention (emergency department [ED] time + operating room [OR] time). Patients were categorized as HRR (FFP:PRBC > 0.7, and/or Plts: PRBC > 0.7) vs low-ratio resuscitation (LRR). Student's t-tests and chi-square tests were used to compare survivors with nonsurvivors. Cox proportional hazards regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to evaluate the association between MIR for FFP:PRBC and Plt:PRBC and 180-minute survival. RESULTS: There were 151 patients who met criteria: 121 (80.1%) patients survived 180 minutes (MIR:PRBC 71.9 mL/min, FFP 92.0 mL/min, Plt 3.5 mL/min) vs 30 (19.9%) who did not survive (MIR:PRBC 47.3 mL/min, FFP 33.7 mL/min, Plt 1.1 mL/min), p = 0.43, p < 0.0001 and p < 0.011, respectively. A Cox regression model evaluated PRBC rate, FFP rate, and Plt rate (mL/min) as mortality predictors within 180 minutes to assess if they significantly affected survival (hazard ratios 1.01 [p = 0.054], 0.97 [p < 0.0001], and 0.75 [p = 0.01], respectively). Another model used stepwise Cox regression including PRBC rate, FFP rate, and Plt rate (hazard ratios 1.00 [p = 0.85], 0.97 [p < 0.0001], and 0.88 [p = 0.24], respectively), as well as possible confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine effects of MIRs on survival. Further studies on the effects of narrow time-interval analysis for blood product resuscitation are warranted.

Mechanism of injury is not a predictor of trauma center admission.

Most trauma systems use mechanism of injury (MOI) as an indicator for trauma center transport, often overburdening the system as a result of significant overtriage. Before 2005 our trauma center accepted all MOI. After 2005 we accepted only those patients meeting anatomic and physiologic (A&P) triage criteria. Patients entered into the trauma center database were divided into two groups: 2001 to 2005 (Group 1) and 2007 to 2010 (Group 2) and also categorized based on trauma team activation for either A&P or MOI criteria. Overtriage was defined as patient discharge from the emergency department within 6 hours of trauma activation. A total of 9899 patients were reviewed. Group 1 had 6584 patients with 3613 (55%) activated for A&P criteria and 2971 (45%) for MOI. Group 2 had 3315 patients with 3149 (95%) activated for A&P criteria and 166 (5%) for MOI. Accepting only those patients meeting A&P criteria resulted in a decrease in the overtriage rate from 66 to 9 per cent. By accepting only those patients meeting A&P criteria, we significantly reduced our overtriage rate. Patients meeting MOI criteria were transported to community hospitals and transferred to the trauma center if major injuries were identified. Trauma center transport for MOI results in significant overtriage and may not be justified.

Not all mechanisms are created equal: a single-center experience with the national guidelines for field triage of injured patients.

BACKGROUND: Trauma systems use prehospital evaluation of anatomic and physiologic criteria and mechanism of injury (MOI) to determine trauma center need (TCN). MOI criteria are established nationally in a collaborative effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma and have been revised several times, most recently in 2011. Controversy exists as to which MOI criteria truly predict TCN. We review our single-center experience with past and present National Trauma Triage Criteria to determine which MOI predict TCN. METHODS: The trauma registry of an urban Level I trauma center was reviewed from 2001 to 2011 for all patients meeting only MOI criteria. Patients meeting any anatomic and physiologic criteria were excluded. TCN was defined as death, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of greater than 15, emergency department transfusion, intensive care unit admission, need for laparotomy/thoracotomy/vascular surgery within 24 hours of arrival, pelvic fracture, 2 or more proximal long bone fractures, or neurosurgical intervention during admission. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify which MOI predict TCN. RESULTS: A total of 3,569 patients were transported to our trauma center who met only MOI criteria and had the MOI recorded in the registry; 821 MOI patients (23%) were identified who met our definition of TCN. Significant predictors of TCN included death in the same passenger compartment, ejection from vehicle, extrication time of more than 20 minutes, fall from more than 20 feet, and pedestrian thrown/runover. Criteria not meeting TCN include vehicle intrusion, rollover motor vehicle collision, speed of more than 40 mph, injury from autopedestrian/autobicycle of more than 5 mph, and both of the motorcycle crash (MCC) criteria. CONCLUSION: With the exception of vehicle intrusion and MCC, the new National Trauma Triage Criteria accurately predicts TCN. In addition, extrication time of more than 20 minutes was a positive predictor of TCN in our system. Elimination of the vehicle intrusion and MCC criteria and reevaluation of extrication time merits further study.

Initial assessment on the impact of crystalloids versus colloids during damage control resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: High ratios of fresh frozen plasma:packed red blood cells in damage control resuscitation (DCR) are associated with increased survival. The impact of volume and type of resuscitative fluid used during high ratio transfusion has not been analyzed. We hypothesize a difference in outcomes based on the type and quantity of resuscitative fluid used in patients that received high ratio DCR. METHODS: A matched case control study of patients who received transfusions of ≥ four units of PRBC during damage control surgery over 4 1/2 y, was conducted at a Level I Trauma Center. All patients received a high ratio DCR, >1:2 of fresh frozen plasma:packed red blood cells. Demographics and outcomes of the type and quantity of resuscitative fluids used in combination with high ratio DCR were compared and analyzed. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was computed among four groups: colloid (median quantity = 1.0 L), <3 L crystalloid, 3-6 L crystalloid, and >6 L crystalloid. RESULTS: There were 56 patients included in the analysis (28 in the crystalloid group and 28 in the colloid group). Demographics were statistically similar. Intraoperative median units of PRBC: crystalloid versus colloid groups was 13 (IQR 8-21) versus 16 (IQR 12-19), P = 0.135; median units of FFP: 12 (IQR 7-18) versus 12 (IQR 10-18), P = 0.440. OR for 10-d mortality in the crystalloid group was 8.41 [95% CI 1.65-42.76 (P = 0.01)]. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated lowest mortality in the colloid group and higher mortality with increasing amounts of crystalloid (P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: During high ratio DCR, resuscitation with higher volumes of crystalloids was associated with an overall decreased survival, whereas low volumes of colloid use were associated with increased survival. In order to improve outcomes without diluting the survival benefit of hemostatic resuscitation, guidelines should focus on effective low volume resuscitation when high ratio DCR is used. A multi-institutional analysis is needed in order to validate these results.

When enough is enough: impact of packed red blood cells in massive transfusion outcomes.

Massive transfusion protocol (MTP) with fresh-frozen plasma and packed red blood cells (PRBCs) in a 1:1 ratio is one of the most common resuscitative strategies used in patients with severe hemorrhage. There are no studies to date that examine the best postoperative hematocrit range as a marker for survival after MTP. We hypothesize a postoperative hematocrit dose-dependent survival benefit in patients receiving MTP. This was a 53-month retrospective analysis of patients with intra-abdominal injuries requiring surgery and transfusion of 10 units PRBCs or more at a single Level I trauma center. Groups were defined by postoperative hematocrit (less than 21, 21 to 29, 29.1 to 39, and 39 or more). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival probability was calculated. One hundred fifty patients requiring operative abdominal explorations and 10 units PRBCs or more were identified. There were no significant differences in demographics between groups. When comparing postoperative hematocrit groups, relative to a hematocrit of less than 21 per cent in KM survival analysis, an overall survival advantage was only evident in patients transfused to hematocrits 29.1 to 39 per cent (P < 0.03; odds ratio [OR], 0.284; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.089 to 0.914). This survival advantage was not seen in the other groups (21 to 29: OR, 0.352; 95% CI, 0.103 to 1.195 or 39% or greater: OR, 0.107; 95% CI, 0.010 to 1.121). This is the first study to examine the impact of postoperative hematocrit as an indicator of survival after MTP in the trauma patient. Transfusion to hematocrits between 29.1 and 39 per cent conveyed a survival benefit, whereas resuscitation to supraphysiologic hematocrits 39 per cent or greater conveyed no additional survival benefit. This study highlights the need for judicious PRBC administration during MTP and its potential impact on survival in patients with postoperative supraphysiologic hematocrits.

Low-volume resuscitation for severe intraoperative hemorrhage: a step in the right direction.

The impact on outcomes resulting from crystalloids used with hemostatic close ratio resuscitation (HCRR) in intraoperative hemorrhage (IOH) has not been analyzed. We hypothesize a survival advantage in patients with IOH managed with a low-volume resuscitation (LVR) protocol during HCRR. A 4-year case-control study was conducted to determine the impact on mortality of LVR versus conventional resuscitation efforts (CRE) during HCRR. A total of 45 patients managed with a HCRR + LVR protocol (combination Hextend® and 3% hypertonic saline) and 55 historical cohorts managed with HCRR + CRE (lactated Ringer's) were included. Patient demographics, number of intraoperative units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) and fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) received, and FFP:PRBC ratio were similar between groups. The mean intraoperative fluid volume was 0.76 L in the HCRR + LVR group versus 4.7 L in the HCRR + CRE group (P = 0.003). In a linear regression model HCRR + LVR versus HCRR + CRE, mean trauma intensive care unit length of stay was 6 versus 11 days (P = 0.009); 30-day overall mortality was 11.1 versus 32.7 per cent (P = 0.009); perioperative mortality was 2.2 to 10.9 per cent (P = 0.13); and intensive care unit mortality 8.8 to 21.8 per cent (P = 0.07). LVR protocol conveyed a survival benefit to patients undergoing HCRR (odds ratio for mortality, 0.07 [95% confidence interval 0.07-0.54]). This is the first civilian study to analyze the impact of LVR in patients managed with HCRR during IOH. Patients with IOH managed with HCRR and a predefined LVR protocol with Hextend® and 3 per cent hypertonic saline had an overall survival advantage and shorter trauma intensive care unit length of stay. LVR can be an effective alternative to CRE when used in combination with HCRR in patients with IOH.

Damage control immunoregulation: is there a role for low-volume hypertonic saline resuscitation in patients managed with damage control surgery?

Hypertonic saline (HTS) is beneficial in the treatment of head-injured patients as a result of its potent cytoprotective effects on various cell lines. We hypothesize that low-volume resuscitation with 3 per cent HTS, when used after damage control surgery (DCS), improves outcomes compared with standard resuscitation with isotonic crystalloid solution (ICS). This is a 4-year retrospective review from two Level I trauma centers. Patients included had 10 units or more of packed red blood cells during initial DCS. On arrival to the trauma intensive care unit (TICU), patients were resuscitated with low-volume 3 per cent HTS or with conventional ICS. A cohort analysis was performed comparing resuscitation strategies. Univariate analysis of continuous data was done with Student t test followed by multivariate analysis. Of 188 patients included, 76 were in the low-volume HTS group and 112 in the ICS group. Demographics were similar between the groups. Over the next 48 hours after DCS in HTS versus ISC groups, intravenous fluids were given: 1920 ± 455 mL versus 8400 ± 1200 mL (P < 0.0001); urine output was 4320 ± 480 mL versus 1940 ± 480 mL(P < 0.0001); mean TICU length of stay was 10 ± 8 versus 16 ± 15 days (P < 0.01); prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome was 4.0 versus 13.4 per cent (P = 0.02); sepsis was 6.6 versus 15.2 per cent (P = 0.06); multisystem organ failure was: 2.6 versus 16.1 per cent (P < 0.01); and 30-day mortality was 5.3 versus 15.2 per cent (P = 0.03). There was no difference for prevalence of renal failure at 5.3 versus 3.6 per cent (P = 0.58). Low-volume resuscitation with HTS administered after DCS on arrival to the TICU may have a protective effect on the polytrauma patient. We believe that this study demonstrates a role for low-volume resuscitation with HTS to improve outcomes in patients undergoing DCS.

Restrictive fluid resuscitation in combination with damage control resuscitation: time for adaptation.

BACKGROUND: Damage control resuscitation (DCR) conveys a survival advantage in patients with severe hemorrhage. The role of restrictive fluid resuscitation (RFR) when used in combination with DCR has not been elucidated. We hypothesize that RFR, when used with DCR, conveys an overall survival benefit for patients with severe hemorrhage. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis from January 2007 to May 2011 at a Level I trauma center. Inclusion criteria included penetrating torso injuries, systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, and managed with DCR and damage control surgery (DCS). There were two groups according to the quantity of fluid before DCS: (1) standard fluid resuscitation (SFR) greater than or equal to 150 mL of crystalloid; (2) RFR less than 150 mL of crystalloid. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred seven patients were included. Before DCS, 132 (43%) received less than 150 mL of crystalloids, grouped under RFR; and 175 (57%) received greater than or equal to 150 mL of crystalloids, grouped under SFR. Demographics and initial clinical characteristics were similar between the study groups. Compared with the SFR group, RFR patients received less fluid preoperatively (129 mL vs. 2,757 mL; p < 0.001), exhibited a lower intraoperative mortality (9% vs. 32%; p < 0.001), and had a shorter hospital length of stay (13 vs. 18 days; p = 0.02). Patients in the SFR group had a lower trauma intensive care unit mortality (5 vs. 12%; p = 0.03) but exhibited a higher overall mortality. Patients receiving RFR demonstrated a survival benefit, with an odds ratio for mortality of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.91). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first civilian study that analyzes the impact of RFR in patients managed with DCR. Its use in conjunction with DCR for hypotensive trauma patients with penetrating injuries to the torso conveys an overall and early intraoperative survival benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Risk factors for cervical spine injury.

INTRODUCTION: The early recognition of cervical spine injury remains a top priority of acute trauma care. Missed diagnoses can lead to exacerbation of an existing injury and potentially devastating consequences. We sought to identify predictors of cervical spine injury. METHODS: Trauma registry records for blunt trauma patients cared for at a Level I Trauma Centre from 1997 to 2002 were examined. Cervical spine injury included all cervical dislocations, fractures, fractures with spinal cord injury, and isolated spinal cord injuries. Univariate and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to identify potential risk factors. Variables and two-way interaction terms were subjected to multivariate analysis using backward conditional stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Data from 18,644 patients, with 55,609 injuries, were examined. A total of 1255 individuals (6.7%) had cervical spine injuries. Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) (odds ratio (OR) of 1.61 (1.26, 2.06)), fall (OR of 2.14 (1.63, 2.79)), age <40 (OR of 1.75 (1.38-2.17)), pelvic fracture (OR of 9.18 (6.96, 12.11)), Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 (OR of 7.55 (6.16-9.25)), were all significant individual predictors of cervical spine injury. Neither facial fracture nor head injury alone were associated with an increased risk of cervical spine injury. Significant interactions between pelvic fracture and fall and pelvic fracture and head injury were associated with a markedly increased risk of cervical spine (OR 19.6 (13.1, 28.8)) and (OR 27.2 (10.0-51.3)). CONCLUSIONS: MVC and falls were independently associated with cervical spine injury. Pelvic fracture and fall and pelvic fracture and head injury, had a greater than multiplicative interaction and high risk for cervical spine injury, warranting increased vigilance in the evaluation of patients with this combination of injuries.