1.
Outcome measures used in clinical research evaluating pre-hospital blood component transfusion in traumatically injured bleeding patients: A systematic review
Tucker H, Avery P, Brohi K, Davenport R, Griggs J, Weaver A, Green L
The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 2021
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Trial outcomes should be relevant to all stakeholders, and allow assessment of interventions' efficacy and safety at appropriate timeframes. There is no consensus regarding outcome measures in the growing field of pre-hospital trauma transfusion research. Harmonization of future clinical outcome reporting is key to facilitate inter-study comparisons and generate cohesive, robust evidence to guide practice. OBJECTIVES To evaluate outcome measures reported in pre-hospital trauma transfusion trials. METHODS Data Sources, Eligibility Criteria, Participants and InterventionsWe conducted a scoping systematic review to identify the type, number and definitions of outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective observational cohort studies investigating pre-hospital blood component transfusion in adult and paediatric patients with traumatic haemorrhage. Electronic database searching of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, OVID, clinical trials.gov, and the Transfusion Evidence Library was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsTwo review authors independently extracted outcome data. Unique lists of salutogenic (patient-reported health and wellbeing outcomes) and non-salutogenic focused outcomes were established. RESULTS 3,471 records were identified. 34 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria: four military (n = 1,566 patients) and 30 civilian (n = 14,398 patients), all between 2000 and 2020. 212 individual non-patient-reported outcomes were identified, which collapsed into 20 outcome domains with varied definitions and timings. All primary outcomes measured effectiveness, rather than safety or complications. 69% reported mortality, with 11 different definitions. No salutogenic outcomes were reported. LIMITATIONS The review is limited by a lack of high-grade prospective comparative trials with clear predefined primary outcomes. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS There is heterogeneity in outcome reporting and definitions, an absence of patient-reported outcome, and an emphasis on clinical effectiveness rather than safety or adverse events in pre-hospital trauma transfusion trials. We recommend stakeholder consultation and a Delphi process to develop a clearly defined minimum core outcome set for pre-hospital trauma transfusion trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131406). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II. STUDY TYPE Scoping Systematic Review.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult and paediatric patients with traumatic haemorrhage (34 studies, n= 15,964).
Intervention
Systematic review to identify the type, number and definitions of outcomes reported in pre-hospital trauma transfusion research.
Comparison
Outcome
212 individual non-patient-reported outcomes were identified, which collapsed into 20 outcome domains with varied definitions and timings. All primary outcomes measured effectiveness, rather than safety or complications. 69% reported mortality, with 11 different definitions. No salutogenic outcomes were reported.
2.
Accuracy of risk tools to predict critical bleeding in major trauma: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Gianola S, Castellini G, Biffi A, Porcu G, Napoletano A, Coclite D, D'Angelo D, Fauci AJ, Iacorossi L, Latina R, et al
The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. 2021
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early detection of critical bleeding by accurate tools can help ensure rapid delivery of blood products to improve outcomes in major trauma patients. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of risk tools to predict critical bleeding in patients with major trauma. METHODS PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were searched up to February 2021 for studies investigating risk tools to predict critical bleeding for major trauma people in pre-hospital and emergency department. We followed the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Two independent authors included studies, extracted data, appraised the quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and assessed the certainty of evidence using thee Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Sensitivity, specificity and the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve for all selected triage tools. RESULTS Eighty-nine observational studies for adults and 12 observational studies for children met our inclusion criteria. In adults, we found 23 externally validated and 28 un-validated tools; in children, 3 externally validated tools and 5 un-validated. In the externally validated tools, we identified those including clinical, laboratory and ultrasound assessments. Among tools including only a clinical assessment, the Shock Index showed high sensitivity and specificity with the Certainty of Evidence ranging from very low to moderate in adults, as well as Shock Index Pediatric Age-adjusted (SIPA) with a moderate Certainty of Evidence. We found that tools using clinical, laboratory and ultrasound assessments were overall more accurate than those tools without all three components. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians should consider risk tools to predict critical bleeding in a time-sensitive setting like major life threatening trauma. The Shock index and SIPA are easy and handy tools to predict critical bleeding in the pre-hospital setting. In the emergency department, however, many other tools can be utilized which include laboratory and ultrasound assessments, depending on staff experience and resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review, diagnostic Level III.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults and children with major trauma (101 studies).
Intervention
Systematic review to identify the most accurate risk tools to predict critical bleeding.
Comparison
Outcome
Twenty-three externally validated and 28 un-validated tools were found for adults, and 3 externally validated tools and 5 un-validated, for children. Among tools including only a clinical assessment, the Shock Index showed high sensitivity and specificity with the Certainty of Evidence ranging from very low to moderate in adults, as well as Shock Index Paediatric Age-adjusted with a moderate Certainty of Evidence. It was found that tools using clinical, laboratory and ultrasound assessments were overall more accurate than those tools without all three components.
3.
Metrics of shock in pediatric trauma patients: A systematic search and review
Alberto, E. C., McKenna, E., Amberson, M. J., Tashiro, J., Donnelly, K., Thenappan, A. A., Tempel, P. E., Ranganna, A. S., Keller, S., Marsic, I., et al
Injury. 2021;52(10):3166-3172
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Shock-index (SI) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) are metrics for identifying children and adults with hemodynamic instability following injury. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the quality of these metrics as predictors of outcomes following pediatric injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a literature search in Pubmed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL to identify studies describing the association between shock metrics on the morbidity and mortality of injured children and adolescents. We used the data presented in the studies to calculate the sensitivity and specificity for each metric. This study was registered with Prospero, protocol CRD42020162971. RESULTS Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. seven studies evaluated SI or SIPA score, an age-corrected version of SI, as predictors of outcomes following pediatric trauma, with one study comparing SIPA score and SBP and one study comparing SI and SBP. The remaining eight studies evaluated SBP as the primary indicator of shock. The median sensitivity for predicting mortality and need for blood transfusion was highest for SI, followed by SIPA, and then SBP. The median specificity for predicting these outcomes was highest for SBP, followed by SIPA, and then SI. CONCLUSIONS Common conclusions were that high SIPA scores were more specific than SI and more sensitive than SBP. SIPA score had better discrimination for severely injured children compared to SI and SBP. An elevated SIPA was associated with a greater need for blood transfusion and higher in-hospital mortality. SIPA is specific enough to exclude most patients who do not require a blood transfusion.
