Abstract

BACKGROUND Haemorrhage and subsequent hypovolemia from traumatic injury is a potentially reversible cause of cardiac arrest, as interventions can be made to increase circulatory volume and organ perfusion. Traditionally, intravenous (IV) fluid therapy is recommended for all patients who have experienced a haemorrhagic emergency. There has been some argument, however, that this may not be the most effective treatment as isotonic fluids can dilute coagulation factors and further stimulate bleeding. Permissive hypotension, also known as hypotensive resuscitation within the context of damage control resuscitation, is a method of managing haemorrhagic trauma patients by restricting IV fluid administration to allow for a reduced blood pressure. It is important to evaluate and compare current research literature on the effects of both permissive hypotension and fluid therapy on patients suffering from traumatic haemorrhage. METHODS A rapid review was conducted by systematically searching and identifying literature to narratively compare permissive hypotension and fluid therapy. Searches were carried out across two databases to find relevant primary research containing quantitative data that provide contextual and statistical evidence to achieve the aim of this review. Papers were narratively synthesised to produce key themes for discussion. RESULTS The database searches identified 125 records, 78 from PubMed and 47 from ScienceDirect. Eleven duplicates were removed, and 114 titles screened. Ninety-four records were initially excluded and nine more after abstract review. Eleven papers were critiqued using Benton and Cormack's framework, with eight articles included in the final review. CONCLUSION Permissive hypotension may have a positive impact on 30-day mortality, when compared with fluid resuscitation methods, however there is evidence to suggest that hypotensive resuscitation may be more effective for blunt force injuries. Some studies even suggest a reduction in the treatment cost when reducing fluid volumes. Penetrating injuries are usually more likely to be a compressible source of haemorrhage within which haemorrhage control can be gained much more easily. There are recommendations for the use of permissive hypotension in both compressible and non-compressible injuries. It is difficult at this time to draw definitive conclusions for the treatment of every case related to traumatic haemorrhage given the variability and unpredictability of trauma.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Urgent treatment with tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces bleeding deaths but there is disagreement about which patients should be treated. We examine the effects of TXA treatment in severely and non-severely injured trauma patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials with over 1000 trauma patients that assessed the effects of TXA on survival. We defined the severity of injury according to characteristics at first assessment: systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg and a heart rate greater than 120 beats per minute or Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than nine or any GCS with one or more fixed dilated pupils. The primary measure was survival on the day of the injury. We examined the effect of TXA on survival in severely and non-severely injured patients and how these effects vary with the time from injury to treatment. RESULTS We obtained data for 32,944 patients from two randomized trials. Tranexamic acid significantly increased survival on the day of the injury (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.34; p < .01). The effect of tranexamic acid on survival in non-severely injured patients (OR = 1.25, 1.03-1.50) was similar to that in severely injured patients (OR = 1.22, 1.09-1.37) with no significant heterogeneity (p = .87). In severely and non-severely injured pateints, treatment within the first hour after injury was the most effective. DISCUSSION Early tranexamic acid treatment improves survival in both severely and non-severely injured trauma patients. Its use should not be restricted to the severely injured.

Abstract

PURPOSE Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a useful adjunct in treatment of patients in severe hemorrhagic shock. Hypothetically, REBOA could benefit patients in traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) as balloon occlusion of the aorta increases afterload and may improve myocardial performance leading to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). This scoping review was conducted to examine the effect of REBOA on patients in TCA. METHODS This scoping review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Statement. PubMed, EMBASE.com and the Web of Science Core Collection were searched. Articles were included if they reported any data on patients that underwent REBOA and were in TCA. Of the included articles, data regarding SBP, ROSC and survival were extracted and summarized. RESULTS Of 854 identified studies, 26 articles met criteria for inclusion. These identified a total of 785 patients in TCA that received REBOA (presumably less because of potential overlap in patients). This review shows REBOA elevates mean SBP in patients in TCA. The achievement of ROSC after REBOA deployment ranged from 18.2% to 67.7%. Survival to discharge ranged from 3.5% to 12.1%. CONCLUSION Overall, weak evidence is available on the use of REBOA in patients in TCA. This review, limited by selection bias, indicates that REBOA elevates SBP and may benefit ROSC and potentially survival to discharge in patients in TCA. Extensive further research is necessary to further clarify the role of REBOA during TCA.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Tranexamic acid is widely available and used off-label in patients with bleeding traumatic injury, although the literature does not consistently agree on its efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE To examine the association of tranexamic acid administration with mortality and thromboembolic events compared with no treatment or with placebo in patients with traumatic injury in the literature. DATA SOURCES On March 23, 2021, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published between 1986 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials and observational studies investigating tranexamic acid administration compared with no treatment or placebo among patients with traumatic injury and traumatic brain injury who were 15 years or older were included. Included studies were published in English or German. The electronic search yielded 1546 records, of which 71 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by 2 reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS The study followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers and pooled using the inverse-variance random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes were formulated before data collection and included mortality at 24 hours and 28 and 30 days (1 month) as well as the incidence of thromboembolic events and the amount of blood products administered. Owing to missing data, overall mortality was added and the amount of blood products administered was discarded. RESULTS Thirty-one studies with a total of 43 473 patients were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis demonstrated that administration of tranexamic acid was associated with a significant decrease in 1-month mortality compared with the control cohort (risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71-0.97]; I2 = 35%). The results of meta-analyses for 24-hour and overall mortality and thromboembolic events were heterogeneous and could not be pooled. Further investigations on clinical heterogeneity showed that populations with trauma and trial conditions differed markedly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that tranexamic acid may be beneficial in various patient populations with trauma. However, reasonable concerns about potential thromboembolic events with tranexamic acid remain.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Tranexamic acid (TXA) plays a significant role in the treatment of traumatic diseases. However, its effectiveness in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) seems to be contradictory, according to the recent publication of several meta-analyses. We aimed to determine the efficacy of TXA treatment at different times and doses for TBI treatment. METHODS PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared TXA and a placebo in adults and adolescents (≥ 15 years of age) with TBI up to January 31, 2022. Two authors independently abstracted the data and assessed the quality of evidence. RESULTS Of the identified 673 studies, 13 involving 18,675 patients met our inclusion criteria. TXA had no effect on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.06), adverse events (RR 0.93, 95% Cl 0.76-1.14), severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score from 3 to 8) (RR 0.99, 95% Cl 0.94-1.05), unfavorable Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS < 4) (RR 0.96, 95% Cl 0.82-1.11), neurosurgical intervention (RR 1.11, 95% Cl 0.89-1.38), or rebleeding (RR 0.97, 95% Cl 0.82-1.16). TXA might reduce the mean hemorrhage volume on subsequent imaging (standardized mean difference, -0.35; 95% CI [-0.62, -0.08]). CONCLUSION TXA at different times and doses was associated with reduced mean bleeding but not with mortality, adverse events, neurosurgical intervention, and rebleeding. More research data is needed on different detection indexes and levels of TXA in patients with TBI, as compared to those not receiving TXA; although the prognostic outcome for all harm outcomes was not affected, the potential for harm was not ruled out. TRIAL REGISTRATION The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022300484).

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a standard component of Tactical Combat Casualty Care. Recent retrospective studies have shown that TXA use is associated with a higher rate of venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in combat-injured patients. We aim to determine if selective administration should be considered in the prolonged field care environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic review using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Clinical trials and observational studies of combat casualties published between January 1, 1960, and June 20, 2022, were included. We analyzed survival and VTE outcomes in TXA recipients and non-recipients. We discussed the findings of each paper in the context of current and future combat environments. RESULTS Six articles met criteria for inclusion. Only one study was powered to report mortality data, and it demonstrated a 7-fold increase in survival in severely injured TXA recipients. All studies reported an increased risk of VTE in TXA recipients, which exceeded rates in civilian literature. However, five of the six studies used overlapping data from the same registry and were limited by a high rate of missingness in pertinent variables. No VTE-related deaths were identified. CONCLUSIONS There may be an increased risk of VTE in combat casualties that receive TXA; however, this risk must be considered in the context of improved survival and an absence of VTE-associated deaths. To optimize combat casualty care during prolonged field care, it will be essential to ensure the timely administration of VTE chemoprophylaxis as soon as the risk of significant hemorrhage permits.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Maxillofacial trauma accounts for ~10% of trauma presentations to most centres, with massive haemorrhage occurring in 1.2-4.5% of cases. Despite its infrequent presentation, there is significant associated morbidity and mortality. Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is playing an increasingly prominent role in trauma presentations. The aim of this article was to compare outcomes of TAE with more traditional management methods for the treatment of massive facial haemorrhage following maxillofacial trauma. METHODS A database and Google Scholar search was performed, with articles discussing massive facial haemorrhage secondary to maxillofacial trauma and its management included. RESULTS Twenty-seven articles were found that met inclusion criteria, encompassing 384 patients. Statistical testing comparing mortality between TAE and non-TAE groups did not find a significant difference, with a mortality rate of 30.2% in the TAE group and 38.9% in the non-TAE group. Assessment of morbidity directly related to interventions was difficult, as many of the included participants had significant associated injuries which contributed an indeterminate degree to morbidity. There was a 10% rate of adverse events associated with TAE, most commonly puncture site haematomas and soft tissue swelling, with more significant adverse events including cerebrovascular accidents and blindness. CONCLUSION Embolization was correlated with increased rates of haemorrhage control when compared with other interventions. Overall, despite no significant impact on mortality, embolization is recommended in the management of massive haemorrhage following maxillofacial trauma due to improved success rates at haemorrhage control and a low rate of significant adverse events.

Abstract

PURPOSE The effect of systemic hemostatic agents initiated during pre-hospital care of severely injured patients with ongoing bleeding or traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of systemic hemostatic agents as an adjunctive therapy in people with major trauma and hemorrhage or TBI in the context of developing the Italian National Institute of Health guidelines on major trauma integrated management. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to October 2021 for studies that investigated pre-hospital initiated treatment with systemic hemostatic agents. The certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the quality of each study was determined with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality, health-related quality of life, any adverse effects and blood product use, hemorrhage expansion, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS Five trials of tranexamic acid (TXA) met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. With a high certainty of evidence, when compared to placebo TXA reduced mortality at 24 h (relative risk = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.73-0.94) and at 1 month among trauma patients (0.91, 0.85-0.97). These results depend on the subgroup of patients with significant hemorrhage because in the subgroup of TBI there are no difference between TXA and placebo. TXA also reduced bleeding death and multiple organ failure whereas no difference in health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION Balancing benefits and harms, TXA initiated in the pre-hospital setting can be used for patients experiencing major trauma with significant hemorrhage since it reduces the risk of mortality at 24 h and one month with no difference in terms of adverse effects when compared to placebo. Considering the subgroup of severe TBI, no difference in mortality rate was found at 24 h and one month. These results highlight the need to conduct future studies to investigate the role of other systemic hemostatic agents in the pre-hospital settings.

Abstract

PURPOSE Tourniquet use in lower limb fracture surgery may reduce intra-operative bleeding, improve surgical field of view and reduce length of procedure. However, tourniquets may result in pain and the production of harmful metabolites cause complications or affect functional outcomes. This systematic review aimed to compare outcomes following lower limb fracture surgery performed with or without tourniquet. METHODS We searched databases for RCTs comparing lower limb fracture surgery performed with versus without tourniquet reporting on outcomes pain, physical function, health-related quality of life, complications, cognitive function, blood loss, length of stay, length of procedure, swelling, time to union, surgical field of view, volume of anaesthetic agent, biochemical markers of inflammation and injury, and electrolyte and acid-base balance. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. PROSPERO ID CRD42020209310. RESULTS Six RCTs enabled inclusion of 552 procedures. Pooled analysis demonstrated that tourniquet use reduced length of procedure by 6 minutes (95% CI -10.12 to -1.87; p < 0.010). We were unable to exclude increased harms from tourniquet use. Pooled analysis showed post-operative pain score was higher in tourniquet group by 12.88 on 100-point scale (95% CI -1.25-27.02; p = 0.070). Risk differences for wound infection, deep venous thrombosis and re-operation were 0.06 (95% CI -0.00-0.12; p = 0.070), 0.05 (95% CI -0.02-0.11; p = 0.150) and 0.03 (95% CI -0.03-0.09; p = 0.340). CONCLUSION Tourniquet use was associated with a reduced length of procedure. It is possible that tourniquets also increase incidence of important complications, but the data are too sparse to draw firm conclusions. Methodological weaknesses of the included RCTs prevent any solid conclusions being drawn for outcomes investigated. Further studies are required to address these limitations.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock were recently published. To date, the clinical evidence of the efficacy of REBOA is still debated. We aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of REBOA in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock. METHODS We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2020. All randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of REBOA compared to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) with/without REBOA or no-REBOA were eligible. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Primary outcomes were mortality, volume of infused blood components, health-related quality of life, time to haemorrhage control and any adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement in haemodynamic status and failure/success of REBOA technique. RESULTS We included 11 studies (5866 participants) ranging from fair to good quality. REBOA was associated with lower mortality when compared to RT (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.74), whereas no difference was observed when REBOA was compared to no-REBOA (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 0.79-2.46). No significant difference in health-related quality of life between REBOA and RT (p = 0.766). The most commonly reported complications were amputation, haematoma and pseudoaneurysm. Sparse data and heterogeneity of reporting for all other outcomes prevented any estimate. CONCLUSIONS Our findings on overall mortality suggest a positive effect of REBOA among non-compressible torso injuries when compared to RT but no differences compared to no-REBOA. Variability in indications and patient characteristics prevents any conclusion deserving further investigation. REBOA should be promoted in specific training programs in an experimental setting in order to test its effectiveness and a randomized trial should be planned.