Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the PROPPR trial transfusion protocols.

BACKGROUND: There have been no prior investigations of the cost effectiveness of transfusion strategies for trauma resuscitation. The Pragmatic, Randomized, Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) study was a Phase III multisite, randomized trial in 680 subjects comparing the efficacy of 1:1:1 transfusion ratios of plasma and platelets to red blood cells with the 1:1:2 ratio. We hypothesized that 1:1:1 transfusion results in an acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, when estimated using patients' age-specific life expectancy and cost of care during the 30-day PROPPR trial period. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes were prospectively collected, and subjects were matched 1:2 to subjects in the Healthcare Utilization Program State Inpatient Data to estimate cost weights. We used a decision tree analysis, combined with standard costs and estimated years of expected survival to determine the cost effectiveness of the two treatments. RESULTS: The 1:1:1 group had higher overall costs for the blood products but were more likely to achieve hemostasis and decreased hemorrhagic death by 24 hours (p = 0.006). For every 100 patients treated in the 1:1:1 group, eight more achieved hemostasis than in the 1:1:2 group. At 30 days, the total hospital cost per 100 patients was $5.6 million in the 1:1:1 group compared with $5.0 million in the 1:1:2 group. For each 100 patients, the 1:1:1 group had 218.5 more years of life expectancy. This was at a cost of $2994 per year gained. CONCLUSION: The 1:1:1 transfusion ratio in severely injured hemorrhaging trauma patients is a very cost-effective strategy for increasing hemostasis and decreasing trauma deaths.

The focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) in hypotensive injured patients frequently fails to identify the need for laparotomy: a multi-institutional pragmatic study.

BACKGROUND: The ability of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) to detect clinically significant hemorrhage in hypotensive injured patients remains unclear. We sought to describe the sensitivity and specificity of FAST using findings at laparotomy as the confirmatory test. METHODS: Patients from the Prospective Observational Multicenter Major Trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study that had a systolic blood pressure < 90mm Hg and underwent FAST were analysed. Results were compared with findings at laparotomy. A therapeutic laparotomy (T-LAP) was defined as an abdominal operation within 6 hours in which a definitive procedure was performed. The sensitivity and specificity of FAST were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort included 317 patients that underwent FAST (108 positive, 209 negative). T-LAP was performed in 69% (n=75) of FAST(+) patients and 22% (n=48) of FAST(-) patients. FAST had a sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 83%. CONCLUSIONS: In our multicenter cohort, 22% of FAST(-) patients underwent T-LAP within 6 hours of admission. In hypotensive patients with a negative FAST, clinicians should still maintain a high index of suspicion for significant abdominal hemorrhage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Estimating the ratio of multivariate recurrent event rates with application to a blood transfusion study.

In comparative effectiveness studies of multicomponent, sequential interventions like blood product transfusion (plasma, platelets, red blood cells) for trauma and critical care patients, the timing and dynamics of treatment relative to the fragility of a patient's condition is often overlooked and underappreciated. While many hospitals have established massive transfusion protocols to ensure that physiologically optimal combinations of blood products are rapidly available, the period of time required to achieve a specified massive transfusion standard (e.g. a 1:1 or 1:2 ratio of plasma or platelets:red blood cells) has been ignored. To account for the time-varying characteristics of transfusions, we use semiparametric rate models for multivariate recurrent events to estimate blood product ratios. We use latent variables to account for multiple sources of informative censoring (early surgical or endovascular hemorrhage control procedures or death). The major advantage is that the distributions of latent variables and the dependence structure between the multivariate recurrent events and informative censoring need not be specified. Thus, our approach is robust to complex model assumptions. We establish asymptotic properties and evaluate finite sample performance through simulations, and apply the method to data from the PRospective Observational Multicenter Major Trauma Transfusion study.

An abdominal computed tomography may be safe in selected hypotensive trauma patients with positive Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma examination.

BACKGROUND: Positive Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma examination and hypotension often indicate urgent surgery. An abdomen/pelvis computed tomography (apCT) may allow less invasive management but the delay may be associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: Patients in the Prospective Observational Multicenter Major Trauma Transfusion study with hypotension and a positive Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (HF+) examination who underwent a CT (apCT+) were compared with those who did not. RESULTS: Of the 92 HF+ identified, 32 (35%) underwent apCT during initial evaluation and apCT was associated with decreased odds of an emergency operation (odds ratio .11, 95% confidence interval .001 to .116) and increased odds of angiographic intervention (odds ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 135). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or need for dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: An apCT in HF+ patients is associated with reduced odds of emergency surgery, but not mortality. Select HF+ patients can safely undergo apCT to obtain clinically useful information.

Purposeful variable selection and stratification to impute missing Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma data in trauma research.

BACKGROUND: The Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination is an important variable in many retrospective trauma studies. The purpose of this study was to devise an imputation method to overcome missing data for the FAST examination. Owing to variability in patients' injuries and trauma care, these data are unlikely to be missing completely at random, raising concern for validity when analyses exclude patients with missing values. METHODS: Imputation was conducted under a less restrictive, more plausible missing-at-random assumption. Patients with missing FAST examinations had available data on alternate, clinically relevant elements that were strongly associated with FAST results in complete cases, especially when considered jointly. Subjects with missing data (32.7%) were divided into eight mutually exclusive groups based on selected variables that both described the injury and were associated with missing FAST values. Additional variables were selected within each group to classify missing FAST values as positive or negative, and correct FAST examination classification based on these variables was determined for patients with nonmissing FAST values. RESULTS: Severe head/neck injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.04), severe extremity injury (OR, 4.03), severe abdominal injury (OR, 1.94), no injury (OR, 1.94), other abdominal injury (OR, 0.47), other head/neck injury (OR, 0.57), and other extremity injury (OR, 0.45) groups had significant ORs for missing data; the other group's OR was not significant (OR, 0.84). All 407 missing FAST values were imputed, with 109 classified as positive. Correct classification of nonmissing FAST results using the alternate variables was 87.2%. CONCLUSION: Purposeful imputation for missing FAST examinations based on interactions among selected variables assessed by simple stratification may be a useful adjunct to sensitivity analysis in the evaluation of imputation strategies under different missing data mechanisms. This approach has the potential for widespread application in clinical and translational research, and validation is warranted.