1.
Reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathy using first-line coagulation factor concentrates or fresh frozen plasma (RETIC): a single-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised trial
Innerhofer P, Fries D, Mittermayr M, Innerhofer N, von Langen D, Hell T, Gruber G, Schmid S, Friesenecker B, Lorenz IH, et al
The Lancet. Haematology. 2017;4((6):):e258-e271.. e258
-
-
-
Full text
Abstract
BACKGROUND Effective treatment of trauma-induced coagulopathy is important; however, the optimal therapy is still not known. We aimed to compare the efficacy of first-line therapy using fresh frozen plasma (FFP) or coagulation factor concentrates (CFC) for the reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathy, the arising transfusion requirements, and consequently the development of multiple organ failure. METHODS This single-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised trial was done at the Level 1 Trauma Center in Innsbruck Medical University Hospital (Innsbruck, Austria). Patients with trauma aged 18-80 years, with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15, bleeding signs, and plasmatic coagulopathy identified by abnormal fibrin polymerisation or prolonged coagulation time using rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) were eligible. Patients with injuries that were judged incompatible with survival, cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the scene, isolated brain injury, burn injury, avalanche injury, or prehospital coagulation therapy other than tranexamic acid were excluded. We used a computer-generated randomisation list, stratification for brain injury and ISS, and closed opaque envelopes to randomly allocate patients to treatment with FFP (15 mL/kg of bodyweight) or CFC (primarily fibrinogen concentrate [50 mg/kg of bodyweight]). Bleeding management began immediately after randomisation and continued until 24 h after admission to the intensive care unit. The primary clinical endpoint was multiple organ failure in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding patients who discontinued treatment). Reversal of coagulopathy and need for massive transfusions were important secondary efficacy endpoints that were the reason for deciding the continuation or termination of the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01545635. FINDINGS Between March 3, 2012, and Feb 20, 2016, 100 out of 292 screened patients were included and randomly allocated to FFP (n=48) and CFC (n=52). Six patients (four in the FFP group and two in the CFC group) discontinued treatment because of overlooked exclusion criteria or a major protocol deviation with loss of follow-up. 44 patients in the FFP group and 50 patients in the CFC group were included in the final interim analysis. The study was terminated early for futility and safety reasons because of the high proportion of patients in the FFP group who required rescue therapy compared with those in the CFC group (23 [52%] in the FFP group vs two [4%] in the CFC group; odds ratio [OR] 25.34 [95% CI 5.47-240.03], p<0.0001) and increased needed for massive transfusion (13 [30%] in the FFP group vs six [12%] in the CFC group; OR 3.04 [0.95-10.87], p=0.042) in the FFP group. Multiple organ failure occurred in 29 (66%) patients in the FFP group and in 25 (50%) patients in the CFC group (OR 1.92 [95% CI 0.78-4.86], p=0.15). INTERPRETATION Our results underline the importance of early and effective fibrinogen supplementation for severe clotting failure in multiple trauma. The available sample size in our study appears sufficient to make some conclusions that first-line CFC is superior to FFP. FUNDING None.
Clinical Commentary
What is known?
The management of major trauma haemorrhage has changed significantly over the last two decades, and the use of haemostatic resuscitation (the transfusion of red cells and FFP early and in high ratio to mitigate/treat clotting abnormalities that arise from severe trauma haemorrhage) is now standard practice. There are attendant risks from the transfusion of blood components (TRALI, TACO, increased rates of multiple organ failure (MOF) in trauma) and the potential to use clotting factor concentrates (CFCs) such as prothrombin complex concentrate, factor XIII and fibrinogen in place of FFP may confer advantages.
What did this paper set out to examine?
The RETIC study was a single centre, open-label, RCT evaluating the effects of FFP vs. coagulation factor concentrates (CFCs) as treatment for major bleeding after injury in adult trauma patients (age 18 80). The primary endpoint was the development of MOF during ICU stay, as defined by the SOFA score. Secondary endpoints were numerous and included transfusion use, changes to clotting parameters, thromboembolic complications and mortality. The study was designed to detect a difference in MOF between groups notably the publication did not specify the difference expected and 292 patients were required for 80% power.
What did they show?
The study recruited 100 patients (48 FFP and 52 CFC) between March 2012 Feb 2016. Six patients were later excluded. 44FFP and 50 CFC patients were analysed. The baseline characteristics in each arm were balanced. The study was terminated early for safety 52% patients in FFP arm required rescue therapy (double dose therapy followed by switching to the other treatment to stop the bleeding) compared to 4% CFC group (OR: 25.34 [95% CI 5.47 240.03], p < 0.0001). Additionally more FFP patients received massive transfusion; OR 3.04 [0.95 10.87], p = 0.042.
Primary endpoint results were provided using a modified ITT population (patients randomised but did not complete therapy were removed). The study showed no significant difference in MOF between arms: 66% FFP arm vs. 50% CFC arm; OR 1.92 [95%CI 0.78 4.86], p = 0.15. Post-hoc logistic regression analysis showed a significant difference in MOF development in the FFP arm for patients who had higher injury severity and worse brain injury; OR 3.13 [1.19-8.88], p = 0.025. The CFC patients were more likely to have coagulopathy reversed OR 25.34 [5.47-240.03], p <0.0001. (Defined by: FIBTEM A10 >8mm, EXTEM CT < 78 secs and no clinical bleeding). Seven patients died 5 CFC and 2 FFP, most due to severe brain injury and no patient died from exsanguination.
What are the implications for practice and for future work?
Overall, given these limitations, there will be debate about the implications of this trial for practice. The findings regarding reversal of coagulopathy are intriging there is a clear agreement between reversal of coagulopathy i.e. a FIBTEM A10 >8mm, and an EXTEM CT < 78 secs and reduced bleeding. This is the first time, in an RCT setting, that improved ROTEM parameters have been linked to clinical reduction of bleeding and these findings are important. One particular area for further research might be to validate whether the ROTEM parameters are effective thresholds for bleeding treatment and importantly linking the thresholds with hard clinical outcomes such as mortality or significant reduction in transfusion therapy.
2.
Risks associated with red blood cell transfusion in the trauma population, a meta-analysis
Patel SV, Kidane B, Klingel M, Parry N
Injury. 2014;45((10):):1522-33.
-
-
-
Full text
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A previous meta-analysis has found an association between red blood cell (RBC) transfusions and mortality in critically ill patients, but no review has focused on the trauma population only. OBJECTIVES To determine the association between RBC transfusion and mortality in the trauma population, with secondary outcomes of multiorgan failure (MOF) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute lung injury (ALI). DATA SOURCES EMBASE (1947-2012) and MEDLINE (1946-2012). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were to be included if they assessed the association between RBC transfusion and either the primary (mortality) or secondary outcomes (MOF, ARDS/ALI). PARTICIPANTS Trauma patients. EXPOSURE Red blood cell transfusion. METHODS A literature search was completed and reviewed in duplicate to identify eligible studies. Studies were included in the pooled analyses if an attempt was made to determine the association between RBC and the outcomes, after adjusting for important confounders. A random effects model was used for and heterogeneity was quantified using the I(2) statistic. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS 40 observational studies were included in the qualitative review. Including studies which adjusted for important confounders found the odds of mortality increased with each additional unit of RBC transfused (9 Studies, OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.04-1.10, I(2) 82.9%). The odds of MOF (3 studies, OR 1.08, 95%CI 1.02-1.14, I(2) 95.9%) and ARDS/ALI (2 studies, OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.03-1.10, I(2) 0%) also increased with each additional RBC unit transfused. CONCLUSIONS We have found an association between RBC transfusion and the primary and secondary outcomes, based on observational studies only. This represents the extent of the published literature. Further interventional studies are needed to clarify how limiting transfusion can affect mortality and other outcomes. Copyright 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Clinical Commentary
Dr Annemarie Docherty, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
What is known?
Death from haemorrhage is the second most common cause of death in the trauma population and a high proportion of severely injured patients receive red blood cell transfusions. Evidence from randomised controlled trials in critically ill patients support a restrictive transfusion threshold, however the effect of transfusion on outcomes in trauma may differ due to the timing and amount of transfusion required. Trauma patients may be unstable or actively bleeding, as opposed to the slow decline in haemoglobin often seen in critical care. Evidence in the trauma population is based primarily on small observational studies.
What did this paper set out to examine?
This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to assess the association between red blood cell transfusion and mortality in the trauma population. Secondary outcomes included acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury (ARDS/ALI) and multiorgan failure. Comparative observational and interventional studies were eligible for inclusion.
What did they show?
The authors included 40 studies in the qualitative review. No randomised controlled trials addressed the study question. All studies were observational cohort studies, which increased the risk of selection bias and confounding. Particularly relevant confounders were injury severity and other measures of shock which were strongly associated with the study outcomes. The authors assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the quality of the meta-analysis using the GRADE guidelines.
There was significant heterogeneity. Study size varied from 29 to 25,299. Timing of red blood cell transfusion varied considerably from studies that included transfusion within 24-48 hours only, total in-hospital transfusion, to studies that excluded patients transfused within 48 hours of admission. There were also marked differences in the categorisation of red blood cell transfusion: continuous variable (per unit change), binary variable (transfused/not transfused) and a categorical variable. In addition to this, patient populations also varied: multiply injured patients, patients with only one system injured, massively transfused patients, patients only admitted to the intensive care unit, surgical patients only, intubated patients only, and various injury severity score cutoffs.
Seventeen studies attempted to determine the effect of transfusion on mortality after adjusting for important confounders, and nine of these had enough information to be pooled in the meta-analysis. Eight studies found that red blood cell transfusion was associated with increased odds of mortality, and the adjusted pooled analysis showed an increase in the odds of mortality with each additional unit transfused (OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.04-1.10, p<0.001, I^2=94.6%). The authors graded this evidence as low.
Six studies attempted to determine the adjusted association with multiorgan failure. The odds of multiorgan failure increased with each additional unit of blood (OR 1.08, 95%CI 1.02-1.14, p=0.012, I^2=95.9%). The grade of evidence was moderate.
Six studies assessed the adjusted association between transfusion and ARDS, but only two had enough information to be included in the meta-analysis (transfused vs not transfused: OR 2.04, 95%CI 1.47-2.83, p<0.001, I^2=0%). The authors graded this evidence as very low.
What are the implications for practice and for future work?
The observational studies all showed an association between transfusion and mortality and other negative outcomes. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, and as the authors acknowledge, it is likely that significant confounding persisted even after attempts to adjust for injury and illness severity. The authors have graded the evidence as very low to moderate, and it is not possible to refine red blood cell transfusion practice in trauma on the basis of these observational studies.
This systematic review highlights the lack of evidence for red blood cell transfusion in trauma, and the need for a robust randomised controlled trial in this population. This would minimise confounding and bias, and give a definitive answer regarding the effect of red blood cell transfusion on mortality.