Efficacy and safety of the second in-hospital dose of tranexamic acid after receiving the prehospital dose: double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial in a level 1 trauma center
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society. 2021
BACKGROUND Prehospital administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) to injured patients is increasing worldwide. However, optimal TXA dose and need of a second infusion on hospital arrival remain undetermined. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the second in-hospital dose of TXA in injured patients receiving 1 g of TXA in the prehospital setting. We hypothesized that a second in-hospital dose of TXA improves survival of trauma patients. METHODS A prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized, clinical trial included adult trauma patients receiving 1 g of TXA in the prehospital settings. Patients were then blindly randomized to Group I (second 1-g TXA) and Group II (placebo) on hospital arrival. The primary outcome was 24-h (early) and 28-day (late) mortality. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolic events, blood transfusions, hospital length of stay (HLOS) and organs failure (MOF). RESULTS A total of 220 patients were enrolled, 110 in each group. The TXA and placebo groups had a similar early [OR 1.000 (0.062-16.192); p = 0.47] and late mortality [OR 0.476 (95% CI 0.157-1.442), p = 0.18].The cause of death (n = 15) was traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 12 patients and MOF in 3 patients. The need for blood transfusions in the first 24 h, number of transfused blood units, HLOS, thromboembolic events and multiorgan failure were comparable in the TXA and placebo groups. In seriously injured patients (injury severity score > 24), the MTP activation was higher in the placebo group (31.3% vs 11.10%, p = 0.13), whereas pulmonary embolism (6.9% vs 2.9%, p = 0.44) and late mortality (27.6% vs 14.3%, p = 0.17) were higher in the TXA group but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION The second TXA dose did not change the mortality rate, need for blood transfusion, thromboembolic complications, organ failure and HLOS compared to a single prehospital dose and thus its routine administration should be revisited in larger and multicenter studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03846973.
Review of Existing Scoring Systems For Massive Blood Transfusion in Trauma Patients: Where Do We Stand?
Shock (Augusta, Ga.). 2019
BACKGROUND Uncontrolled bleeding is the main cause of the potential preventable death in trauma patients. Accordingly, we reviewed all the existing scores for massive transfusion posttraumatic hemorrhage and summarized their characteristics, thus making it easier for the reader to have a global view of these scores - how they were created, their accuracy and to which population they apply. METHODS A narrative review with a systematic search method to retrieve the journal articles on the predictive scores or models for massive transfusion was carried out. A literature search using PubMed, SCOPUS and Google scholar was performed using relevant keywords in different combinations. The keywords used were "massive transfusion", "score", "model", "trauma" and "hemorrhage" in different combinations. The search was limited for full-text articles published in English language, human species and for the duration from 01 January, 1998 to 30 November, 2018. RESULTS The database search yielded 295 articles. The search was then restricted to the inclusion criteria which retrieved 241 articles. Duplicates were removed and full-texts were assessed for the eligibility to include in the review which resulted in inclusion of 24 articles. These articles identified 24 scoring systems including modified or revised scores. Different models and scores for identifying patients requiring massive transfusion in military and civilian settings have been described. Many of these scorings were complex with difficult calculation, while some were simple and easy to remember. CONCLUSIONS The current prevailing practice that is best described as institutional or provider centered should be supplemented with score based protocol with auditing and monitoring tools to refine it. This review summarizes the current scoring models in predicting the need for MT in civilian and military trauma. Several questions remain open; i.e., do we need to develop new score, merge scores, modify scores or adopt existing score for certain trauma setting?