Prediction of massive bleeding in a prehospital setting: validation of six scoring systems. / Predicción de hemorragia masiva a nivel extrahospitalario: validación de seis escalas.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the diagnostic ability of six different scores to predict massive bleeding in a prehospital setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Prehospital attention of patients with severe trauma. SUBJECTS: Subjects with more than 15 years, a history of severe trauma (defined by code 15 criteria), that were initially assisted in a prehospital setting by the emergency services between January 2010 and December 2015 and were then transferred to a level one trauma center in Madrid. VARIABLES: To validate: 1. Trauma Associated Severe Haemorrhage Score. 2. Assessment of Blood Consumption Score. 3. Emergency Transfusión Score. 4. Índice de Shock. 5. Prince of Wales Hospital/Rainer Score. 6. Larson Score. RESULTS: 548 subjects were studied, 76,8% (420) were male, median age was 38 (interquartile range [IQR]: 27-50). Injury Severity Score was 18 (IQR: 9-29). Blunt trauma represented 82,5% (452) of the cases. Overall, frequency of MB was 9,2% (48), median intensive care unit admission days was 2,1 (IQR: 0,8 - 6,2) and hospital mortality rate was 11,2% (59). Emergency Transfusión Score had the highest precisions (AUC 0,85), followed by Trauma Associated Severe Haemorrhage score and Prince of Wales Hospital/Rainer Score (AUC 0,82); Assessment of Blood Consumption Score was the less precise (AUC 0,68). CONCLUSION: In the prehospital setting the application of any the six scoring systems predicts the presence of massive hemorrhage and allows the activation of massive transfusion protocols while the patient is transferred to a hospital.

Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) profile in a cohort of asystole donors. / Perfil de tromboelastometría rotacional (ROTEM) en una cohorte de asistolia no controlada.

BACKGROUND: Hypoperfusion plays a central role in shock states, and has been proposed as a coagulopathy trigger. The study of the rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) profile during cardiac arrest could offer new insights to the role of hypoperfusion in coagulation during shock states. OUTCOME: To describe the ROTEM profile in a cohort of asystole donors and elucidate the incidence of hyperfibrinolysis. DESIGN: A prospective observational study was carried out in 18 patients consecutively admitted to the ICU after out-of-hospital non-recovered cardiac arrest (CA). Initial rhythm and time between CA and admission were recorded. Conventional coagulation and ROTEM (EXTEM, APTEM, FIBTEM) tests were performed within 30minutes after blood sample collection. SCOPE: An asystole donor reference hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to the ICU after out-of-hospital non-recovered CA. RESULTS: The median age was 50years, and 14 of the patients were men (77.8%). The time from CA to hospital admission expressed as the median (interquartile range) was 91minutes (75-104). The results of the routine tests were: INR 1.25 (1.19-1.34), aPTT 55s (45-73) and fibrinogen 161mg/dl (95-295). For the ROTEM APTEM assay the results were: CT 126s (104-191), CFT 247s (203-694). Hyperfibrinolysis criteria were recorded in 15 patients (83.3%). In addition, MCF improved in APTEM versus EXTEM. Prolonged CA times were associated to lower fibrinogen levels and lower values for MCF FIBTEM (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The ROTEM assays revealed severe alterations of the clot formation parameters and a high incidence of hyperfibrinolysis.

"Do not do" recommendations of the working groups of the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) for the management of critically ill patients. / Recomendaciones de "no hacer" en el tratamiento de los pacientes críticos de los grupos de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC).

The project "Commitment to Quality of Scientific Societies", promoted since 2013 by the Spanish Ministry of Health, seeks to reduce unnecessary health interventions that have not proven effective, have little or doubtful effectiveness, or are not cost-effective. The objective is to establish the "do not do" recommendations for the management of critically ill patients. A panel of experts from the 13 working groups (WGs) of the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) was selected and nominated by virtue of clinical expertise and/or scientific experience to carry out the recommendations. Available scientific literature in the management of adult critically ill patients from 2000 to 2017 was extracted. The clinical evidence was discussed and summarized by the experts in the course of consensus finding of each WG, and was finally approved by the WGs after an extensive internal review process carried out during the first semester of 2017. A total of 65 recommendations were developed, of which 5 corresponded to each of the 13 WGs. These recommendations are based on the opinion of experts and scientific knowledge, and aim to reduce those treatments or procedures that do not add value to the care process; avoid the exposure of critical patients to potential risks; and improve the adequacy of health resources.

Prediction of massive bleeding. Shock index and modified shock index. / Predicción de hemorragia masiva. Índice de shock e índice de shock modificado.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive value of the Shock Index and Modified Shock Index in patients with massive bleeding due to severe trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Severe trauma patient's initial attention at the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS: Patients older than 14 years that were admitted to the hospital with severe trauma (Injury Severity Score >15) form January 2014 to December 2015. VARIABLES: We studied the sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive and negative predictive value (PV+ and PV-), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+ and LR-), ROC curves (Receiver Operating Characteristics) and the area under the same (AUROC) for prediction of massive hemorrhage. RESULTS: 287 patients were included, 76.31% (219) were male, mean age was 43,36 (±17.71) years and ISS was 26 (interquartile range [IQR]: 21-34). The overall frequency of massive bleeding was 8.71% (25). For Shock Index: AUROC was 0.89 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.84 to 0.94), with an optimal cutoff at 1.11, Se was 91.3% (95% CI: 73.2 to 97.58) and Sp was 79.69% (95% CI: 74.34 to 84.16). For the Modified Shock Index: AUROC was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.95), with an optimal cutoff at 1.46, Se was 95.65% (95% CI: 79.01 to 99.23) and Sp was 75.78% (95% CI: 70.18 to 80.62). CONCLUSION: Shock Index and Modified Shock Index are good predictors of massive bleeding and could be easily incorporated to the initial workup of patients with severe trauma.

[A first step towards safer sedation and analgesia: A systematic evaluation of outcomes and level of sedation and analgesia in the mechanically ventilated critically ill patient]. / Un primer paso hacia una analgosedación más segura: evaluación sistemática de objetivos y grado de analgesia y sedación en el paciente crítico con ventilación mecánica.

INTRODUCTION: Safe analgesia and sedation strategies are necessary in order to avoid under or over sedation, as well as improving the comfort and safety of critical care patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation and management of analgesia and sedation in a group of critical care patients on mechanical ventilation with the usual procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort study with contemporary series was conducted in a tertiary care medical-surgical ICU February to November during 2013 and 2014. The inclusion criteria were mechanical ventilation ≥ 24h and use of sedation by continuous infusion. Sedation was monitored using the Richmond agitation-sedation scale or bispectral index, and analgesia were measured using the numeric rating scale, or behavioural indicators of pain scale. The study variables included; mechanical ventilation time, weaning time, ventilation support time, artificial airway time, continuous sedative infusion time, daily dose and frequency of analgesic and sedative drug use, hospital stay, and ICU and hospital mortality, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, bispectral index, numeric rating scale, and behavioural indicators of pain scale measurements. Kruskal Wallis and Chi2, and a significance of p<.05 were used. RESULTS: The study included 153 admissions, 75 pre-intervention and 78 post-intervention, with a mean age of 55.7±13 years old, and 67% men. Both groups showed similarities in age, reason for admission, and APACHE. There were non-significant decreases in mechanical ventilation time 4 (1.4-9.2) and 3.2 (1.4-8.1) days, respectively; p= 0.7, continuous sedative infusion time 6 (3-11) and 5 (3-11) days; p= 0.9, length of hospital stay 29 (18-52); 25 (14-41) days; p= 0.1, ICU mortality (8 vs. 5%; p= 0.4), and hospital mortality (10.6 vs. 9.4%: p= 0.8). Daily doses of midazolam and remifentanil decreased 347 (227-479) mg/day; 261 (159-358) mg/day; p= 0.02 and 2175 (1427-3285) mcg/day; 1500 (715-2740) mcg/day; p= 0.02, respectively. There were increases in the use of remifentanil (32% vs. 51%; p= 0.01), dexmedetomidine (0 vs.6%; p= 0.02), dexketoprofen (60 vs. 76%; p= 0.03), and haloperidol (15 vs.28%; p= 0.04). The use of morphine decreased (71 vs. 54%; p= 0.03). There was an increase in the number of measurements and Richmond agitation-sedation scale scores 6 (3-17); 21 (9-39); p< 0.0001, behavioural indicators of pain scale 6 (3-18); 19(8-33); p< 0.001 and numeric rating scale 4 (2-6); 8 (6-17); p< 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation of analgesia and sedation management achieved an improvement in monitoring and adequacy of dose to patient needs, leading to improved outcomes.