Dataset Information

Prehospital identification of trauma patients with early acute coagulopathy and massive bleeding: results of a prospective non-interventional clinical trial evaluating the Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS).

ABSTRACT: Identifying patients who need damage control resuscitation (DCR) early after trauma is pivotal for adequate management of their critical condition. Several trauma-scoring systems have been developed to identify such patients, but most of them are not simple enough to be used in prehospital settings in the early post-traumatic phase. The Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS) is an easy-to-measure and strictly clinical trauma score developed to meet this medical need.TICCS is a 3-item clinical score (range: 0 to 18) based on the assessment of general severity, blood pressure and extent of body injury and calculated by paramedics on-site for patients with severe trauma. This non-interventional prospective study was designed to assess the ability of TICCS to discern patients who need DCR. These patients were patients with early acute coagulopathy of trauma (EACT), haemorrhagic shock, massive transfusion and surgical or endovascular haemostasis during hospitalization. Diagnosis of EACT was assessed by both thromboelastometry and conventional coagulation tests.During an 18-month period, 89 severe trauma patients admitted to the general emergency unit at our hospital were enrolled in the study, but 7 were excluded for protocol violations. Of the 82 remaining patients, 8 needed DCR and 74 did not. With receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, TICCS proved to be a powerful discriminant test (area under the curve = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.0). A cutoff of 10 on the TICCS scale provided the best balance between sensitivity (100%; 95% CI: 53.9 to 100) and specificity (95.9%; 95% CI: 88.2 to 99.2). The positive predictive value was 72.7%, and the negative predictive value was 100.0%.TICCS can be easily and rapidly measured by paramedics at the trauma site. In this study of blunt trauma patients, TICCS was able to discriminate between patients with and without need for DCR. TICCS on-site evaluation should allow initiation of optimal care immediately upon hospital admission of patients with severe trauma in need of DCR. However, a larger multicentre prospective study is needed for in-depth validation of TICCS.Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02132208 (registered 6 May 2014).

SUBMITTER: Tonglet ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4279963 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prehospital identification of trauma patients with early acute coagulopathy and massive bleeding: results of a prospective non-interventional clinical trial evaluating the Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS).

Tonglet Martin L ML Minon Jean Marc JM Seidel Laurence L Poplavsky Jean Louis JL Vergnion Michel M

Critical care (London, England) 20141126 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Identifying patients who need damage control resuscitation (DCR) early after trauma is pivotal for adequate management of their critical condition. Several trauma-scoring systems have been developed to identify such patients, but most of them are not simple enough to be used in prehospital settings in the early post-traumatic phase. The Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS) is an easy-to-measure and strictly clinical trauma score developed to meet this medical n ...[more]

PMID: 25425230

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBlood transfusion is a mainstay of therapy for trauma-induced coagulopathy, but the optimal modalities for plasma transfusion in the prehospital setting remain to be defined.ObjectiveTo determine whether lyophilized plasma transfusion can reduce the incidence of trauma-induced coagulopathy compared with standard care consisting of normal saline infusion.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was performed at multiple centers in France involving prehospital medical teams. Participants included 150 adults with trauma who were at risk for hemorrhagic shock and associated coagulopathy between April 1, 2016, and September 30, 2019, with a 28-day follow-up. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2019, to July 1, 2020.InterventionPatients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either plasma or standard care with normal saline infusion (control).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the international normalized ratio (INR) on arrival at the hospital. Secondary outcomes included the need for massive transfusion and 30-day survival. As a safety outcome, prespecified adverse events included thrombosis, transfusion-related acute lung injury, and transfusion-associated circulatory overload.ResultsAmong 150 randomized patients, 134 were included in the analysis (median age, 34 [IQR, 26-49] years; 110 men [82.1%]), with 68 in the plasma group and 66 in the control group. Median INR values were 1.21 (IQR, 1.12-1.49) in the plasma group and 1.20 (IQR, 1.10-1.39) in the control group (median difference, -0.01 [IQR, -0.09 to 0.08]; P = .88). The groups did not differ significantly in the need for massive transfusion (7 [10.3%] vs 4 [6.1%]; relative risk, 1.78 [95% CI, 0.42-8.68]; P = .37) or 30-day survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.44-2.61]; P = .89). In the full intention-to-treat population (n = 150), the groups did not differ in the rates of any of the prespecified adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial including severely injured patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock and associated coagulopathy, prehospital transfusion of lyophilized plasma was not associated with significant differences in INR values vs standard care with normal saline infusion. Nevertheless, these findings show that lyophilized plasma transfusion is a feasible and safe procedure for this patient population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02736812.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Severe traumatic injury continues to present challenges to healthcare systems around the world, and post-traumatic bleeding remains a leading cause of potentially preventable death among injured patients. Now in its fifth edition, this document aims to provide guidance on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles described here to individual institutional circumstances and resources. METHODS:The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004, and the current author group included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group applied a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were re-examined and revised based on scientific evidence that has emerged since the previous edition and observed shifts in clinical practice. New recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. RESULTS:Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of post-traumatic coagulopathy have supported improved management strategies, including evidence that early, individualised goal-directed treatment improves the outcome of severely injured patients. The overall organisation of the current guideline has been designed to reflect the clinical decision-making process along the patient pathway in an approximate temporal sequence. Recommendations are grouped behind the rationale for key decision points, which are patient- or problem-oriented rather than related to specific treatment modalities. While these recommendations provide guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of major bleeding and coagulopathy, emerging evidence supports the author group's belief that the greatest outcome improvement can be achieved through education and the establishment of and adherence to local clinical management algorithms. CONCLUSIONS:A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. If incorporated into local practice, these clinical practice guidelines have the potential to ensure a uniform standard of care across Europe and beyond and better outcomes for the severely bleeding trauma patient.

Project description:BackgroundSevere trauma represents a major global public health burden and the management of post-traumatic bleeding continues to challenge healthcare systems around the world. Post-traumatic bleeding and associated traumatic coagulopathy remain leading causes of potentially preventable multiorgan failure and death if not diagnosed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. This sixth edition of the European guideline on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury aims to advise clinicians who care for the bleeding trauma patient during the initial diagnostic and therapeutic phases of patient management.MethodsThe pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma included representatives from six European professional societies and convened to assess and update the previous version of this guideline using a structured, evidence-based consensus approach. Structured literature searches covered the period since the last edition of the guideline, but considered evidence cited previously. The format of this edition has been adjusted to reflect the trend towards concise guideline documents that cite only the highest-quality studies and most relevant literature rather than attempting to provide a comprehensive literature review to accompany each recommendation.ResultsThis guideline comprises 39 clinical practice recommendations that follow an approximate temporal path for management of the bleeding trauma patient, with recommendations grouped behind key decision points. While approximately one-third of patients who have experienced severe trauma arrive in hospital in a coagulopathic state, a systematic diagnostic and therapeutic approach has been shown to reduce the number of preventable deaths attributable to traumatic injury.ConclusionA multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidelines are pillars of best practice in the management of severely injured trauma patients. Further improvement in outcomes will be achieved by optimising and standardising trauma care in line with the available evidence across Europe and beyond.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Orthopedic surgeons commonly prescribe opioids, surpassing all medical specialties. Our objective was to develop a pain management scale that captures medication use, patient-reported pain scores, and helps orthopedic surgeons evaluate their post-operative prescribing practice. Materials and Methods: An IRB-approved prospective study followed 502 post-operative orthopedic surgery patients over a six-month period. All patients were surveyed in an orthopedic clinic at a Level 1 US Trauma Center, during a routine follow-up. Patient pain satisfaction was assessed using the validated Interventional Pain Assessment (IPA) scale, which uses three categories: 0 (no pain), 1 (tolerable pain), and 2 (intolerable pain). Daily narcotic use was translated to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) using the Michigan Automated Prescription System (MAPS) narcotics registry. When patient pain satisfaction and narcotic usage were combined, this scale was called the Detroit Interventional Pain Assessment (DIPA) scale. Results: The five classes based on common prescription and usage of narcotics in this cohort include the following: A (no pain medication), B (over-the-counter medication), C (occasional use of short-acting narcotics 1-30 MMEs), D (consistent/regular use of short-acting narcotics 31-79 MMEs), and E (long-duration or stronger short-acting narcotics 80+ MMEs). Patients were most satisfied with their pain management at six weeks (80.5%) and three months (75.65%), and least satisfied at two weeks (62.5%) and six months (60.9%). Additional information displayed on the DIPA graph revealed there was a significant decrease in the percentage of patients on narcotics at two weeks (65.2%) to six months (32.6%) at p < 0.001. Conclusions: The DIPA pain scale shows the relationship between patient pain perception and opioid prescription/usage, while also tracking prescriber tendencies. Providers were able to visualize their post-operative pain management progression at each designated clinic visit with corresponding alphabetical daily MME categories. In this study, results suggest that surgeons were not effective at managing the pain of patients at two weeks post-operative, which is attributed to an inadequate number of pain pills prescribed upon discharge. Overall, the DIPA graph signaled that better pain management interventions are necessitated in periods with lower efficiency scores.

Project description:BackgroundAnnually, over 1 billion people sustain traumatic injuries, resulting in over 900,000 deaths in Africa and 6 million deaths globally. Timely response, intervention, and transportation in the prehospital setting reduce morbidity and mortality of trauma victims. Our objective was to describe the existing literature evaluating trauma morbidity and mortality outcomes as a function of prehospital care time to identify gaps in literature and inform future investigation.Main bodyWe performed a scoping review of published literature in MEDLINE. Results were limited to English language publications from 2009 to 2020. Included articles reported trauma outcomes and prehospital time. We excluded case reports, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, comments, editorials, letters, and conference proceedings. In total, 808 articles were identified for title and abstract review. Of those, 96 articles met all inclusion criteria and were fully reviewed. Higher quality studies used data derived from trauma registries. There was a paucity of literature from studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with only 3 (3%) of articles explicitly including African populations. Mortality was an outcome measure in 93% of articles, predominantly defined as "in-hospital mortality" as opposed to mortality within a specified time frame. Prehospital time was most commonly assessed as crude time from EMS dispatch to arrival at a tertiary trauma center. Few studies evaluated physiologic morbidity outcomes such as multi-organ failure.ConclusionThe existing literature disproportionately represents high-income settings and most commonly assessed in-hospital mortality as a function of crude prehospital time. Future studies should focus on how specific prehospital intervals impact morbidity outcomes (e.g., organ failure) and mortality at earlier time points (e.g., 3 or 7 days) to better reflect the effect of early prehospital resuscitation and transport. Trauma registries may be a tool to facilitate such research and may promote higher quality investigations in Africa and LMICs.

Dataset Information

Prehospital identification of trauma patients with early acute coagulopathy and massive bleeding: results of a prospective non-interventional clinical trial evaluating the Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS).

Publications

Prehospital identification of trauma patients with early acute coagulopathy and massive bleeding: results of a prospective non-interventional clinical trial evaluating the Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets