Variations between level I trauma centers in 24-hour mortality in severely injured patients requiring a massive transfusion.

Department of Surgery, and The Center for Translational Injury Research, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
The Journal of trauma (Impact Factor: 2.35). 08/2011; 71(2 Suppl 3):S389-93. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318227f307
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Significant differences in outcomes have been demonstrated between Level I trauma centers. Usually these differences are ascribed to regional or administrative differences, although the influence of variation in clinical practice is rarely considered. This study was undertaken to determine whether differences in early mortality of patients receiving a massive transfusion (MT, ≥ 10 units pf RBCs within 24 hours of admission) persist after adjustment for patient and transfusion practice differences. We hypothesized differences among centers in 24-hour mortality could predominantly be accounted for by differences in transfusion practices as well as patient characteristics.
Data were retrospectively collected over a 1-year period from 15 Level I centers on patients receiving an MT. A purposeful variable selection strategy was used to build the final multivariable logistic model to assess differences between centers in 24-hour mortality. Adjusted odds ratios for each center were calculated.
: There were 550 patients evaluated, but only 443 patients had complete data for the set of variables included in the final model. Unadjusted mortality varied considerably across centers, ranging from 10% to 75%. Multivariable logistic regression identified injury severity score (ISS), abbreviated injury scale (AIS) of the chest, admission base deficit, admission heart rate, and total units of RBC transfused, as well as ratios of plasma:RBC and platelet:RBC to be associated with 24-hour mortality. After adjusting for severity of injury and transfusion, treatment variables between center differences were no longer significant.
In the defined population of patients receiving an MT, between-center differences in 24-hour mortality may be accounted for by severity of injury as well as transfusion practices.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traumatic injury in the United States is the Number 1 cause of mortality for patients 1 year to 44 years of age. Studies suggest that early identification of major injury leads to better outcomes for patients. Imaging, such as computed tomography (CT), is routinely used to help determine the presence of major underlying injuries. We review the literature to determine whether whole-body CT (WBCT), a protocol including a noncontrast scan of the brain and neck and a contrast-enhanced scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis, detects more clinically significant injuries as opposed to selective scanning as determined by mortality rates.
    Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 10/2014; 77(4):534-539. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000414 · 2.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Survival after severe traumatic shock can be complicated by a number of pathophysiologic processes that ensue after the initial trauma. One of these is trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) whose onset may occur before initial fluid resuscitation. The pathogenesis of TIC has not yet been fully elaborated, but evolving evidence appears to link severe tissue hypoxia and damage to the endothelium as key factors, which evolve into measurable structural and biochemical changes of the endothelium resulting in a coagulopathic state. This paper will provide a general review of these linkages and identify knowledge gaps as well as suggest new approaches and areas of investigation, which may both limit the development of TIC as well as produce insights into its pathophysiology. A better understanding of these issues will be necessary in order to advance the practice of remote damage control resuscitation.
    Transfusion 01/2013; 53(S1). DOI:10.1111/trf.12034 · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the recognition of early coagulopathy, trauma resuscitation has shifted toward liberal platelet transfusions. The overall benefit of this strategy remains controversial. Our objective was to compare the effects of a liberal use of platelet (higher platelet:RBC ratios) with a conservative approach (lower ratios) in trauma resuscitation. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Biosis, Cochrane Central, and Scopus. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing two or more platelet:RBC ratios in trauma resuscitation. We excluded studies investigating the use of whole blood or hemostatic products. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were early (in ICU or within 30 d) and late (in hospital or after 30 d) mortality. Secondary outcomes were multiple organ failure, lung injury, and sepsis. From 6,123 citations, no randomized controlled trials were identified. We included seven observational studies (4,230 patients) addressing confounders through multivariable regression or propensity scores. Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Among the five studies including exclusively patients requiring massive transfusions, four observed a lower mortality with higher ratios. Two studies considering nonmassively bleeding patients observed no benefit of using higher ratios. Two studies evaluated the implementation of a massive transfusion protocol; only one study observed a decrease in mortality with higher ratios. Of the two studies at low risk of survival bias, one study observed a survival benefit. Three studies assessed secondary outcomes. One study observed an increase in multiple organ failure with higher ratios, whereas no study demonstrated an increased risk in lung injury or sepsis. There is insufficient evidence to strongly support the use of a precise platelet:RBC ratio for trauma resuscitation, especially in nonmassively bleeding patients. Randomized controlled trials evaluating both the safety and efficacy of liberal platelet transfusions are warranted.
    Critical care medicine 08/2013; 41(12). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a6ecb · 6.15 Impact Factor