Damage Control Resuscitation Is Associated With a Reduction in Resuscitation Volumes and Improvement in Survival in 390 Damage Control Laparotomy Patients
ABSTRACT To determine whether implementation of damage control resuscitation (DCR) in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy (DCL) translates into improved survival.
DCR aims at preventing coagulopathy through permissive hypotension, limiting crystalloids and delivering higher ratios of plasma and platelets. Previous work has focused only on the impact of delivering higher ratios (1:1:1).
A retrospective cohort study was performed on all DCL patients admitted between January 2004 and August 2010. Patients were divided into pre-DCR implementation and DCR groups and were excluded if they died before completion of the initial laparotomy. The lethal triad was defined as immediate postoperative temperature less than 95°F, international normalized ratio more than 1.5, or a pH less than 7.30.
A total of 390 patients underwent DCL. Of these, 282 were pre-DCR and 108 were DCR. Groups were similar in demographics, injury severity, admission vitals, and laboratory values. DCR patients received less crystalloids (median: 14 L vs 5 L), red blood cells (13 U vs 7 U), plasma (11 U vs 8 U), and platelets (6 U vs 0 U) in 24 hours, all P < 0.05. DCR patients had less evidence of the lethal triad upon intensive care unit arrival (80% vs 46%, P < 0.001). 24-hour and 30-day survival was higher with DCR (88% vs 97%, P = 0.006 and 76% vs 86%, P = 0.03). Multivariate analysis controlling for age, injury severity, and emergency department variables, demonstrated DCR was associated with a significant increase in 30-day survival (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.10-5.58, P = 0.028).
In patients undergoing DCL, implementation of DCR reduces crystalloid and blood product administration. More importantly, DCR is associated with an improvement in 30-day survival.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although terrorist bombings have tormented the world for a long time, currently they have reached unprecedented levels and become a continuous threat without borders, race or age. Almost all of them are caused by improvised explosive devices. The unpredictability of the terrorist bombings, leading to simultaneous generation of a large number of casualties and severe "multidimensional" blast trauma require a constant vigilance and preparedness of every hospital worldwide. Approximately 1-2.6% of all trauma patients and 7% of the combat casualties require a massive blood transfusion. Coagulopathy is presented in 65% of them with mortality exceeding 50%. Damage control resuscitation is a novel approach, developed in the military practice for treatment of this subgroup of trauma patients. The comparison with the conventional approach revealed mortality reduction with 40-74%, lower frequency of abdominal compartment syndrome (8% vs. 16%), sepsis (9% vs. 20%), multiorgan failure (16% vs. 37%) and a significant reduction of resuscitation volumes, both crystalloids and blood products. DCS and DCR are promising new approaches, contributing for the mortality reduction among the most severely wounded patients. Despite the lack of consensus about the optimal ratio of the blood products and the possible influence of the survival bias, we think that DCR carries survival benefit and recommend it in trauma patients with exsanguinating bleeding.06/2014; 1:13. DOI:10.1186/2054-9369-1-13
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Nonoperative multidisciplinary management for severe (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grades IV and V) liver injury has been used for two decades. We have previously shown that Damage Control Resuscitation (DCR) using low-volume, balanced resuscitation improves survival of severely injured trauma patients; however, little attention has been paid to organ-specific outcomes. We wanted to determine if implementation of DCR has improved survival and successful nonoperative management after severe blunt liver injury. A retrospective study was performed on all adult trauma patients with severe blunt liver injury who were admitted from 2005 to 2011. Patients were divided into pre-DCR (2005-2008) and DCR (2009-2011) groups. Patients who died before leaving the emergency department (ED) were excluded. Outcomes (resuscitation products used, survival, and length of stay) were then compared by univariate and multivariate analyses. Between 2005 and 2011, 29,801 adult trauma patients were admitted, and 1,412 (4.7%) experienced blunt liver injury. Of these, 244 (17%) sustained Grade IV and V injuries, with 206 patients surviving to leave the ED. The pre-DCR group (2005-2008) was composed of 108 patients, and the DCR group (2009-2011) had 98 patients. The groups were not different in demographics as well as prehospital and ED vital signs or Injury Severity Score (ISS). No change in operative or interventional radiology techniques occurred in this time frame. The DCR cohort had an increase in successful nonoperative management (from 54% to 74%, p < 0.01) as well as a reduction in initial 24-hour packed red blood cell (median, from 13 U to 6.5 U; p < 0.01), plasma (median, from 13 U to 8 U; p < 0.01), and crystalloid (median, from 5,800 mL to 4,100 mL; p < 0.01) administration. The DCR treatment was associated with improved survival, from 73% to 94% (p < 0.01). In patients with severe blunt liver injury, DCR was associated with less crystalloid and blood product use, a higher successful nonoperative management rate, and improved survival. Resuscitation technique may improve outcomes after severe liver injury. Therapeutic/care management, level III.Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 02/2015; 78(2):336-341. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000514 · 1.97 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Severely injured patients experiencing hemorrhagic shock often require massive transfusion. Earlier transfusion with higher blood product ratios (plasma, platelets, and red blood cells), defined as damage control resuscitation, has been associated with improved outcomes; however, there have been no large multicenter clinical trials. To determine the effectiveness and safety of transfusing patients with severe trauma and major bleeding using plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 ratio compared with a 1:1:2 ratio. Pragmatic, phase 3, multisite, randomized clinical trial of 680 severely injured patients who arrived at 1 of 12 level I trauma centers in North America directly from the scene and were predicted to require massive transfusion between August 2012 and December 2013. Blood product ratios of 1:1:1 (338 patients) vs 1:1:2 (342 patients) during active resuscitation in addition to all local standard-of-care interventions (uncontrolled). Primary outcomes were 24-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality. Prespecified ancillary outcomes included time to hemostasis, blood product volumes transfused, complications, incidence of surgical procedures, and functional status. No significant differences were detected in mortality at 24 hours (12.7% in 1:1:1 group vs 17.0% in 1:1:2 group; difference, -4.2% [95% CI, -9.6% to 1.1%]; P = .12) or at 30 days (22.4% vs 26.1%, respectively; difference, -3.7% [95% CI, -10.2% to 2.7%]; P = .26). Exsanguination, which was the predominant cause of death within the first 24 hours, was significantly decreased in the 1:1:1 group (9.2% vs 14.6% in 1:1:2 group; difference, -5.4% [95% CI, -10.4% to -0.5%]; P = .03). More patients in the 1:1:1 group achieved hemostasis than in the 1:1:2 group (86% vs 78%, respectively; P = .006). Despite the 1:1:1 group receiving more plasma (median of 7 U vs 5 U, P < .001) and platelets (12 U vs 6 U, P < .001) and similar amounts of red blood cells (9 U) over the first 24 hours, no differences between the 2 groups were found for the 23 prespecified complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, and transfusion-related complications. Among patients with severe trauma and major bleeding, early administration of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 ratio compared with a 1:1:2 ratio did not result in significant differences in mortality at 24 hours or at 30 days. However, more patients in the 1:1:1 group achieved hemostasis and fewer experienced death due to exsanguination by 24 hours. Even though there was an increased use of plasma and platelets transfused in the 1:1:1 group, no other safety differences were identified between the 2 groups. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01545232.