Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).

Haemoglobin transfusion threshold in traumatic brain injury optimisation (HEMOTION): a multicentre, randomised, clinical trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of mortality and long-term disability in young adults. Despite the high prevalence of anaemia and red blood cell transfusion in patients with TBI, the optimal haemoglobin (Hb) transfusion threshold is unknown. We undertook a randomised trial to evaluate whether a liberal transfusion strategy improves clinical outcomes compared with a restrictive strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HEMOglobin Transfusion Threshold in Traumatic Brain Injury OptimizatiON is an international pragmatic randomised open label blinded-endpoint clinical trial. We will include 742 adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with an acute moderate or severe blunt TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤12) and a Hb level ≤100 g/L. Patients are randomly allocated using a 1:1 ratio, stratified by site, to a liberal (triggered by Hb ≤100 g/L) or a restrictive (triggered by Hb ≤70 g/L) transfusion strategy applied from the time of randomisation to the decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies, ICU discharge or death. Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed centrally by trained research personnel blinded to the intervention. The primary outcome is the Glasgow Outcome Scale extended at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include overall functional independence measure, overall quality of life (EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level; EQ-5D-5L), TBI-specific quality of life (Quality of Life after Brain Injury; QOLIBRI), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9) and mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is approved by the CHU de Québec-Université Laval research ethics board (MP-20-2018-3706) and ethic boards at all participating sites. Our results will be published and shared with relevant organisations and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03260478.

Inter-hospital variation in surgical intensity for trauma admissions: A multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for injury care are increasingly moving away from surgical management towards less invasive procedures but there is a knowledge gap on how these recommendations are influencing practice. We aimed to assess inter-hospital variation in surgical intensity for injury admissions and evaluate the correlation between hospital surgical intensity and mortality/complications. METHODS: We included adults admitted for major trauma between 2006 and 2016 in a Canadian provincial trauma system. Analyses were stratified for orthopaedic (n = 16 887), neurological (n = 12 888) and torso injuries (n = 9816). Surgical intensity was quantified with the number of surgical procedures <72 hours. Inter-hospital variation was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed the correlation between the risk-adjusted mean number of surgical procedures and risk-adjusted incidence of mortality and complications using Pearson correlation coefficients (r). RESULTS: Moderate inter-hospital variation was observed for orthopaedic surgery (ICC = 14.0%) whereas variation was low for torso surgery (ICC = 2.7%) and neurosurgery (ICC = 0.8%). Surgical intensity was negatively correlated with hospital mortality for torso injury (r = -.32, P = .02) and neurotrauma (r = -.65, P = .08). A strong positive correlation was observed with hospital complications for orthopaedic injuries (r = .36, P = .006) whereas the opposite was observed for neurotrauma (r = -.71, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Results should be interpreted with caution as they may be a result of residual confounding. However, they may suggest that there are opportunities for quality improvement in surgical care for injury admissions, particularly for orthopaedic injuries. Moving forward, we should aim to prospectively evaluate adherence to guidelines on non-operative management and their impact on mortality and morbidity.

Resource use for older people hospitalised due to injury in a Canadian integrated trauma system: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Injuries represent one of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality. For countries with ageing populations, admissions of injured older patients are increasing exponentially. Yet, we know little about hospital resource use for injured older patients. Our primary objective was to evaluate inter-hospital variation in the risk-adjusted resource use for injured older patients. Secondary objectives were to identify the determinants of resource use and evaluate its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of injured older patients (≥65 years) admitted to any trauma centres in the province of Quebec (2013-2016, N = 33,184). Resource use was estimated using activity-based costing and modelled with multilevel linear models. We conducted separate subgroup analyses for patients with trauma and fragility fractures. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted resource use varied significantly across trauma centres, more for older patients with fragility fractures (intra-class correlation coefficients [ICC] = 0.093, 95% CI [0.079, 0.102]) than with trauma (ICC = 0.047, 95% CI = 0.035-0.051). Risk-adjusted resource use increased with age, and the number of comorbidities, and varied with discharge destination (P < 0.001). Higher hospital resource use was associated with higher incidence of complications for trauma (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7) and fragility fractures (r = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7) and with higher mortality for fragility fractures (r = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant inter-hospital variations in resource use for injured older patients. Hospitals with higher resource use did not have better clinical outcomes. Hospital resource use may not always positively impact patient care and outcomes. Future studies should evaluate mechanisms, by which hospital resource use impacts care.