Purpose: Contemporary trauma resuscitation prioritizes control of bleeding and uses major haemorrhage protocols (MHPs) to prevent and treat coagulopathy. We aimed to determine whether augmenting MHPs with Viscoelastic Haemostatic Assays (VHA) would improve outcomes compared to Conventional Coagulation Tests (CCTs). Methods: This was a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes in trauma patients who received empiric MHPs, augmented by either VHA or CCT-guided interventions. Primary outcome was the proportion of subjects who, at 24 h after injury, were alive and free of massive transfusion (10 or more red cell transfusions). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality. Pre-specified subgroups included patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Results: Of 396 patients in the intention to treat analysis, 201 were allocated to VHA and 195 to CCT-guided therapy. At 24 h, there was no difference in the proportion of patients who were alive and free of massive transfusion (VHA: 67%, CCT: 64%, OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.76-1.73). 28-day mortality was not different overall (VHA: 25%, CCT: 28%, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.31), nor were there differences in other secondary outcomes or serious adverse events. In pre-specified subgroups, there were no differences in primary outcomes. In the pre-specified subgroup of 74 patients with TBI, 64% were alive and free of massive transfusion at 24 h compared to 46% in the CCT arm (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.84-5.34). Conclusion: There was no difference in overall outcomes between VHA-and CCT-augmented-major haemorrhage protocols.

Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Patients presenting with low ML and low DD levels have low injury severity and normal outcomes. Conversely, patients with low ML but high DD levels are severely injured, functionally coagulopathic and have poor clinical outcomes. These patients have low tissue plasminogen activator levels and are not detectable by ROTEM. S100A10 is a cell surface plasminogen receptor which may drive the hyperfibrinolysis in these patients and which when shed artificially lowers %ML ex-vivo.

Fibrinolysis activation occurs almost universally after severe trauma. Systemic hyperfibrinolysis is a key component of acute traumatic coagulopathy and associated with poor clinical outcomes, although controversy exists over optimal treatment strategies. The mechanistic drivers and dynamics of fibrinolytic activation in response to injury and trauma resuscitation are currently unclear. Furthermore, therapeutic triggers are compounded by the lack of a sensitive and rapid diagnostic tool, with discrepancy between hyperfibrinolysis diagnosed by viscoelastic hemostatic assays versus biomarkers for fibrinolysis. Rotational thromboelastometry and thromboelastography appear capable of detecting the severest forms of hyperfibrinolysis but are relatively insensitive to moderate, yet clinically significant fibrinolytic activation. Rapid evaluation of the current status of the fibrinolytic system remains a challenge and therefore the decision whether to administer an antifibrinolytic agent should be based on available evidence from clinical trials. In line with current European guidelines, we recommend that all bleeding trauma patients, and in particular, severely injured patients with evidence of hemorrhagic shock, should receive early empiric tranexamic acid. This review explains our current knowledge of the pathophysiological pathways which induce hyperfibrinolysis in trauma hemorrhage, evaluates the available diagnostic modalities, and describes current treatment strategies.

Therapeutic, level III.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

BackgroundTraumatic injury is the fourth leading cause of death globally. Half of all trauma deaths are due to bleeding and most of these will occur within 6 h of injury. Haemorrhagic shock following injury has been shown to induce a clotting dysfunction within minutes, and this early trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) may exacerbate bleeding and is associated with higher mortality and morbidity. In spite of improved resuscitation strategies over the last decade, current transfusion therapy still fails to correct TIC during ongoing haemorrhage and evidence for the optimal management of bleeding trauma patients is lacking. Recent publications describe increasing the use of Viscoelastic Haemostatic Assays (VHAs) in trauma haemorrhage; however, there is insufficient evidence to support their superiority to conventional coagulation tests (CCTs).Methods/designThis multicentre, randomised controlled study will compare the haemostatic effect of an evidence-based VHA-guided versus an optimised CCT-guided transfusion algorithm in haemorrhaging trauma patients. A total of 392 adult trauma patients will be enrolled at major trauma centres. Participants will be eligible if they present with clinical signs of haemorrhagic shock, activate the local massive haemorrhage protocol and initiate first blood transfusion. Enrolled patients will be block randomised per centre to either VHA-guided or CCT-guided transfusion therapy in addition to that therapy delivered as part of standard care, until haemostasis is achieved. Patients will be followed until discharge or 28 days. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects alive and free of massive transfusion (less than 10 units of red blood cells) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes include the effect of CCT- versus VHA-guided therapy on organ failure, total hospital and intensive care lengths of stay, health care resources needed and mortality. Surviving patients will be asked to complete a quality of life questionnaire (EuroQol EQ-5DTM) at day 90.DiscussionCCTs have traditionally been used to detect TIC and monitor response to treatment in traumatic major haemorrhage. The use of VHAs is increasing, but limited evidence exists to support the superiority of these technologies (or comparatively) for patient-centred outcomes. This knowledge gap will be addressed by this trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02593877. Registered on 15 October 2015. Trial sponsor Queen Mary University of LondonThe contact person of the above sponsor organisation is: Dr. Sally Burtles, Director of Research Services and Business Development, Joint Research Management Office, QM Innovation Building, 5 Walden Street, London E1 2EF; phone: 020 7882 7260; Email: sponsorsrep@bartshealth.nhs.uk Trial sites Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsKliniken der Stadt Köln gGmbH, Cologne, GermanyRigshospitalet (Copenhagen University Hospital), Copenhagen, DenmarkJohn Radcliff Hospital, Oxford, United KingdomOslo University Hospital, Oslo, NorwayThe Royal London Hospital, London, United KingdomCentr...

Improving the outcomes for bleeding trauma patients requires a deeper understanding of the mechanisms driving hyperfibrinolysis and the subsequent switch toward a prothrombotic state. Discovering the interplay between platelet activity, fibrinogen utilization, the immune response, and the fibrinolytic system may lead to development of novel therapeutics.