Dataset Information

Taking the Blood Bank to the Field: The Design and Rationale of the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial.

ABSTRACT: Hemorrhage and trauma induced coagulopathy remain major drivers of early preventable mortality in military and civilian trauma. Interest in the use of prehospital plasma in hemorrhaging patients as a primary resuscitation agent has grown recently. Trauma center-based damage control resuscitation using early and aggressive plasma transfusion has consistently demonstrated improved outcomes in hemorrhaging patients. Additionally, plasma has been shown to have several favorable immunomodulatory effects. Preliminary evidence with prehospital plasma transfusion has demonstrated feasibility and improved short-term outcomes. Applying state-of-the-art resuscitation strategies to the civilian prehospital arena is compelling. We describe here the rationale, design, and challenges of the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial. The primary objective is to determine the effect of prehospital plasma transfusion during air medical transport on 30-day mortality in patients at risk for traumatic hemorrhage. This study is a multicenter cluster randomized clinical trial. The trial will enroll trauma patients with profound hypotension (SBP ? 70 mmHg) or hypotension (SBP 71-90 mmHg) and tachycardia (HR ? 108 bpm) from six level I trauma center air medical transport programs. The trial will also explore the effects of prehospital plasma transfusion on the coagulation and inflammatory response following injury. The trial will be conducted under exception for informed consent for emergency research with an investigational new drug approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration utilizing a multipronged community consultation process. It is one of three ongoing Department of Defense-funded trials aimed at expanding our understanding of the optimal therapeutic approaches to coagulopathy in the hemorrhaging trauma patient.

SUBMITTER: Brown JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4618798 | biostudies-other | 2015 Jul-Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Taking the Blood Bank to the Field: The Design and Rationale of the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial.

Brown Joshua B JB Guyette Francis X FX Neal Matthew D MD Claridge Jeffrey A JA Daley Brian J BJ Harbrecht Brian G BG Miller Richard S RS Phelan Herb A HA Adams Peter W PW Early Barbara J BJ Peitzman Andrew B AB Billiar Timothy R TR Sperry Jason L JL

Prehospital emergency care 20150206 3

Hemorrhage and trauma induced coagulopathy remain major drivers of early preventable mortality in military and civilian trauma. Interest in the use of prehospital plasma in hemorrhaging patients as a primary resuscitation agent has grown recently. Trauma center-based damage control resuscitation using early and aggressive plasma transfusion has consistently demonstrated improved outcomes in hemorrhaging patients. Additionally, plasma has been shown to have several favorable immunomodulatory effe ...[more]

PMID: 25658881

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesWith increased focus on early resuscitation methods following injury to improve patient outcomes, studies are employing exception from informed consent (EFIC) enrollment. Few studies have assessed patients' opinions following participation in an EFIC study, and none have been conducted within the realm of traumatic hemorrhage. We surveyed those patients and surrogates previously enrolled in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial to clarify their opinions related to consent and emergency research.MethodsTelephone calls were made between January-June 2019 to all patients who were enrolled under EFIC in the PAMPer study at the Pittsburgh site (169 of the 501 total patients enrolled, May 2014-Oct 2017) and their surrogates. Questions gauging approval of EFIC enrollment were asked before discussion of PAMPer trial outcomes, after disclosure of positive outcomes, and after a hypothetical negative trial outcome was proposed.ResultsOf the total 647 telephone calls made, ninety-three interviews, reflecting 70 of 169 patient enrollments, were conducted. This included 13 in which only the patient was interviewed, 23 in which the patient and a surrogate were interviewed, and 34 in which only a surrogate was interviewed. Nearly half (48.4%) of respondents did not recall their personal or family member enrollment in the study. No patients or surrogates recalled hearing about the study through community consultation or being aware of opt out procedures. Patients and surrogates were glad they were enrolled (90.3%), agreed with EFIC use for their personal enrollment (88.17%), and agreed with the general use of EFIC for the PAMPer study (81.7%). Disclosure of the true positive PAMPer study outcome resulted in a significant increase in opinions regarding personal enrollment, EFIC for personal enrollment, and EFIC for general enrollment (all p < 0.001). Disclosure of a hypothetical neutral or negative study outcome resulted in significant decreases in opinions regarding EFIC for personal enrollment (p = 0.003) and EFIC for general enrollment (p < 0.001).ConclusionsClinical trial participants with traumatic hemorrhagic shock enrolled with EFIC, and surrogates of such participants, are generally accepting of EFIC. The results of the trial in which EFIC was utilized significantly affected patient and surrogate agreement with personal and general EFIC enrollment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prior trials comparing a strategy of optimal medical therapy with or without revascularization have not shown that revascularization reduces cardiovascular events in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, those trials only included participants in whom coronary anatomy was known prior to randomization and did not include sufficient numbers of participants with significant ischemia. It remains unknown whether a routine invasive approach offers incremental value over a conservative approach with catheterization reserved for failure of medical therapy in patients with moderate or severe ischemia. METHODS:The ISCHEMIA trial is a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported trial, designed to compare an initial invasive or conservative treatment strategy for managing SIHD patients with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Five thousand one-hundred seventy-nine participants have been randomized. Key exclusion criteria included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min, recent myocardial infarction (MI), left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, left main stenosis >50%, or unacceptable angina at baseline. Most enrolled participants with normal renal function first underwent blinded coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to exclude those with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) and without obstructive CAD. All randomized participants receive secondary prevention that includes lifestyle advice and pharmacologic interventions referred to as optimal medical therapy (OMT). Participants randomized to the invasive strategy underwent routine cardiac catheterization followed by revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, when feasible, as selected by the local Heart Team to achieve optimal revascularization. Participants randomized to the conservative strategy undergo cardiac catheterization only for failure of OMT. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Assuming the primary endpoint will occur in 16% of the conservative group within 4 years, estimated power exceeds 80% to detect an 18.5% reduction in the primary endpoint. Major secondary endpoints include the composite of CV death and nonfatal MI, net clinical benefit (primary and secondary endpoints combined with stroke), angina-related symptoms and disease-specific quality of life, as well as a cost-effectiveness assessment in North American participants. Ancillary studies of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and those with documented ischemia and non-obstructive coronary artery disease are being conducted concurrently. CONCLUSIONS:ISCHEMIA will provide new scientific evidence regarding whether an invasive management strategy improves clinical outcomes when added to optimal medical therapy in patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia.

Project description:BackgroundPrehospital plasma improves survival for severely injured trauma patients transported by air ambulance. We sought to characterize the unexpected survivors, patients who survived despite having high predicted mortality after traumatic injury.MethodsThe Prehospital Air Medical Plasma trial randomized severely injured patients (n = 501) to receive either standard care (crystalloid) or two units of prehospital plasma followed by standard care fluid resuscitation. We built a generalized linear model to estimate patient mortality. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate model performance. We defined unexpected survivors as patients who had a predicted mortality greater than 50% and survived to 30 days. We characterized patient demographics, clinical features, and outcomes of the unexpected survivors. Observed to expected (O/E) ratios and Z-statistics were calculated using model-estimated mortality for each cohort.ResultsOur model predicted mortality better than Injury Severity Score or Revised Trauma Score parameters and identified 36 unexpected survivors. Compared with expected survivors, unexpected survivors were younger (33 years [24, 52 years] vs. 47 years [32, 59 years], p = 0.013), were more severely injured (Injury Severity Score 34 [22, 50] vs. 18 [10, 27], p < 0.001), had worse organ dysfunction and hospital resource outcomes (multiple organ failure, intensive care unit, hospital length of stay, and ventilator days), and were more likely to receive prehospital plasma (67 vs. 46%, p = 0.031). Nonsurvivors with high predicted mortality were more likely to receive standard care resuscitation (p < 0.001). Unexpected survivors who received prehospital plasma had a lower observed to expected mortality than those that received standard care resuscitation (O/E 0.56 [0.33-0.84] vs. 1.0 [0.73-1.32]). The number of prehospital plasma survivors (24) exceeded the number of predicted survivors (n = 10) estimated by our model (p < 0.001).ConclusionPrehospital plasma is associated with an increase in the number of unexpected survivors following severe traumatic injury. Prehospital interventions may improve the probability of survival for injured patients with high predicted mortality based on early injury characteristics, vital signs, and resuscitation measures.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level III.

Dataset Information

Taking the Blood Bank to the Field: The Design and Rationale of the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial.

Publications

Taking the Blood Bank to the Field: The Design and Rationale of the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets