Comparison of trauma care structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service and Quebec, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons across trauma systems are key to identifying opportunities to improve trauma care. We aimed to compare trauma service structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service (NHS) and the province of Quebec, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre cohort study including admissions of patients aged older than 15 years with major trauma to major trauma centres (MTCs) from 2014/15 to 2016/17. We compared structures descriptively, and time to MTC and time in the emergency department (ED) using Wilcoxon tests. We compared mortality, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) using multilevel logistic regression with propensity score adjustment, stratified by body region of the worst injury. RESULTS: The sample comprised 36 337 patients from the NHS and 6484 patients from Quebec. Structural differences in the NHS included advanced prehospital medical teams (v. "scoop and run" in Quebec), helicopter transport (v. fixed-wing aircraft) and trauma team leaders. The median time to an MTC was shorter in Quebec than in the NHS for direct transports (1 h v. 1.5 h, p < 0.001) but longer for transfers (2.5 h v. 6 h, p < 0.001). Time in the ED was longer in Quebec than in the NHS (6.5 h v. 4.0 h, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of death were higher in Quebec for head injury (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.51) but lower for thoracoabdominal injuries (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.90). The adjusted median hospital LOS was longer for spine, torso and extremity injuries in the NHS than in Quebec, and the median ICU LOS was longer for spine injuries. CONCLUSION: We observed significant differences in the structure of trauma care, delays in access and risk-adjusted outcomes between Quebec and the NHS. Future research should assess associations between structures, processes and outcomes to identify opportunities for quality improvement.

A high-dose 24-hour tranexamic acid infusion for the treatment of significant gastrointestinal bleeding: HALT-IT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and the risk of death in trauma patients. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that tranexamic acid decreases the number of deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding, but these meta-analyses are prone to selection bias. OBJECTIVE: The trial provides reliable evidence of the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality, rebleeding and complications in significant acute gastrointestinal bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic analysis. Patients were assigned by selecting one treatment pack from a box of eight, which were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The main analyses were by intention to treat. SETTING: The setting was 164 hospitals in 15 countries, co-ordinated from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with significant upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 12,009) were eligible if the responsible clinician was substantially uncertain about whether or not to use tranexamic acid. The clinical diagnosis of significant bleeding implied a risk of bleeding to death, including hypotension, tachycardia or signs of shock, or urgent transfusion, endoscopy or surgery. INTERVENTION: Tranexamic acid (a 1-g loading dose over 10 minutes, then a 3-g maintenance dose over 24 hours) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality; rebleeding; need for endoscopy, surgery or radiological intervention; blood product transfusion; complications; disability; and days spent in intensive care or a high-dependency unit. RESULTS: A total of 12,009 patients were allocated to receive tranexamic acid (n = 5994, 49.9%) or the matching placebo (n = 6015, 50.1%), of whom 11,952 (99.5%) received the first dose. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (3.7%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (3.8%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.18). Thromboembolic events occurred in 86 (1.4%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 72 (1.2%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.64). The risk of arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) was similar in both groups (0.7% in the tranexamic acid group vs. 0.8% in the placebo group; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.39), but the risk of venous thromboembolic events (deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) was higher in tranexamic acid-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (0.8% vs. 0.4%; risk ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.98). Seizures occurred in 38 patients who received tranexamic acid and in 22 patients who received placebo (0.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively; risk ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.93). In the base-case economic analysis, tranexamic acid was not cost-effective and resulted in slightly poorer health outcomes than no tranexamic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding and, although inexpensive, it is not cost-effective in adults with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. FUTURE WORK: These results caution against a uniform approach to the management of patients with major haemorrhage and highlight the need for randomised trials targeted at specific pathophysiological processes. LIMITATIONS: Although this is one of the largest randomised trials in gastrointestinal bleeding, we cannot rule out a modest increase or decrease in death due to bleeding with tranexamic acid. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01658124 and EudraCT 2012-003192-19. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (bleeding from the gut) is a common emergency and an important cause of death and illness worldwide. In the UK, more than 65,000 people each year are admitted to hospital because of acute gastrointestinal bleeding; approximately 10% of them die within 30 days. Gastrointestinal bleeding is also common in low- and middle-income countries. The care of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding has improved in recent decades, but death rates remain high. Gastrointestinal bleeding is often caused by stomach ulcers, but also by liver damage owing to alcohol or hepatitis C infection. An effective and affordable treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding could save many lives and may reduce the need for blood transfusions, which is important because blood is a scarce resource in some health-care settings. Tranexamic acid, also known as TXA, is a cheap drug that reduces bleeding in other conditions. It helps blood to clot, thereby decreasing bleeding. A trial in bleeding accident victims found that tranexamic acid reduced the chances of bleeding to death, without any increase in side effects. We wanted to find out if tranexamic acid safely improves outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly to prevent deaths. To investigate this, the HALT-IT (Haemorrhage ALleviation with Tranexamic acid ­ Intestinal system) trial studied 12,009 patients with significant gastrointestinal bleeding in 164 hospitals across 15 countries. Half of the patients received tranexamic acid and the other half received a dummy drug, called a placebo. The treatments were assigned randomly and given in addition to all other treatments needed. Neither the patient nor the doctor knew which treatment a patient received. The trial showed that tranexamic acid did not reduce deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding. Instead, tranexamic acid was linked to an increased risk of complications, including unwanted blood clots (such as deep-vein thrombosis) and seizures. The economic analysis indicated that giving tranexamic acid to patients with gastrointestinal bleeding does not represent value for money for the NHS.

Tranexamic acid for acute gastrointestinal bleeding (the HALT-IT trial): statistical analysis plan for an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an important cause of mortality worldwide. Bleeding can occur from the upper or lower GI tract, with upper GI bleeding accounting for most cases. The main causes include peptic ulcer/erosive mucosal disease, oesophageal varices and malignancy. The case fatality rate is around 10% for upper GI bleeding and 3% for lower GI bleeding. Rebleeding affects 5-40% of patients and is associated with a four-fold increased risk of death. Tranexamic acid (TXA) decreases bleeding and the need for blood transfusion in surgery and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma and postpartum haemorrhage. It reduces bleeding by inhibiting the breakdown of fibrin clots by plasmin. Due to the methodological weaknesses and small size of the existing trials, the effectiveness and safety of TXA in GI bleeding is uncertain. The Haemorrhage ALleviation with Tranexamic acid - Intestinal system (HALT-IT) trial aims to provide reliable evidence about the effects of TXA in acute upper and lower GI bleeding. METHODS: The HALT-IT trial is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tranexamic acid in 12,000 adults (increased from 8000) with acute upper or lower GI bleeding. Eligible patients are randomly allocated to receive TXA (1-g loading dose followed by 3-g maintenance dose over 24 h) or matching placebo. The main analysis will compare those randomised to TXA with those randomised to placebo on an intention-to-treat basis, presenting the results as effect estimates (relative risks) and confidence intervals. The primary outcome is death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation and secondary outcomes are: rebleeding; all-cause and cause-specific mortality; thromboembolic events; complications; endoscopic, radiological and surgical interventions; blood transfusion requirements; disability (defined by a measure of patient's self-care capacity); and number of days spent in intensive care or high-dependency units. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will consider time to treatment, location of bleeding, cause of bleed and clinical Rockall score. DISCUSSION: We present the statistical analysis of the HALT-IT trial. This plan was published before the treatment allocation was unblinded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN11225767. Registered on 3 July 2012; Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT01658124. Registered on 26 July 2012.

The effect of an organized trauma system on mortality in major trauma involving serious head injury: a comparison of the United kingdom and victoria, australia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes following major trauma involving serious head injury managed in an inclusive trauma system (Victoria, Australia) and a setting where rationalization of trauma services is absent (England/Wales). BACKGROUND: The introduction of regionalized trauma systems has the potential to reduce preventable deaths, but their uptake has been slow around the world. Improved understanding of the benefits and limitations of different systems of trauma care requires comparison across systems. METHODS: Mortality outcomes following major trauma involving serious head injury managed in the 2 settings were compared using multivariate logistic regression. Data pertaining to the period July 2001 to June 2006 (inclusive) were extracted from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) in the United Kingdom and the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) in Australia. RESULTS: A total of 4064 (VSTR) and 6024 (TARN) cases were provided for analysis. The odds of death for TARN cases were significantly higher than those for VSTR cases [odds ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.95-2.37]. After adjusting for age, gender, cause of injury, head injury severity, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and Injury Severity Score, TARN cases remained at elevated odds of death (3.22; 95% confidence interval = 2.84-3.65) compared with VSTR cases. CONCLUSIONS: Management of the severely injured patient with an associated head injury in England and Wales, where an organized trauma system is absent, was associated with increased risk-adjusted mortality compared with management of these patients in the inclusive trauma system of Victoria, Australia. This study provides further evidence to support efforts to implement such systems.

Key issues in advanced bleeding care in trauma.

The incidence of hemostatic abnormalities in the early hours after traumatic incident is high and represents an independent predictor of mortality. Key factors in the development of traumatic coagulopathy include the severity of injury, hypothermia, acidosis, hemorrhagic shock, hemodilution, clotting factor consumption, and fibrinolysis. Assessment of bleeding includes evaluation of the mechanism of injury, vital signs, biochemistry, detection of external and internal bleeding sources, injuries found upon secondary investigation, and response to treatment. Priority in treating the bleeding trauma patient should be given to prevention of further bleeding, hypothermia, acidosis, coagulopathy, and maintenance of tissue oxygenation, achieved by careful physical handling, damage control surgery, analgesia, maintenance of normothermia, correction of coagulopathy, control of blood pH, and serum calcium. Priority during initial treatment is to restore tissue perfusion and achieve hemostasis in vital functions; other nonvital procedures may generally be delayed. This state-of-the-art review aims to address key issues in acute control of bleeding in the trauma patient.