Search

BACKGROUND Early detection of critical bleeding by accurate tools can help ensure rapid delivery of blood products to improve outcomes in major trauma patients. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of risk tools to predict critical bleeding in patients with major trauma. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to February 2021 for studies investigating risk tools to predict critical bleeding for major trauma people in prehospital and emergency department. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy study guidelines. Two independent authors included studies, extracted data, appraised the quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 and assessed the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Sensitivity, specificity, and the receiver operating characteristics curve for all selected triage tools. RESULTS Eighty-nine observational studies for adults and 12 observational studies for children met our inclusion criteria. In adults, we found 23 externally validated and 28 unvalidated tools; in children, 3 externally validated tools and 5 unvalidated. In the externally validated tools, we identified those including clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound assessments. Among tools including only a clinical assessment, the Shock Index showed high sensitivity and specificity with the CoE ranging from very low to moderate in adults, as well as Shock Index Pediatric Age adjusted with a moderate CoE. We found that tools using clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound assessments were overall more accurate than those tools without all three components. CONCLUSION Clinicians should consider risk tools to predict critical bleeding in a time-sensitive setting like major life-threatening trauma. The Shock Index and Shock Index Pediatric Age adjusted are easy and handy tools to predict critical bleed

Purpose:The effect of systemic hemostatic agents initiated during pre-hospital care of severely injured patients with ongoing bleeding or traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of systemic hemostatic agents as an adjunctive therapy in people with major trauma and hemorrhage or TBI in the context of developing the Italian National Institute of Health guidelines on major trauma integrated management. Methods:PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to October 2021 for studies that investigated pre-hospital initiated treatment with systemic hemostatic agents. The certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the quality of each study was determined with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality, health-related quality of life, any adverse effects and blood product use, hemorrhage expansion, and patient-reported outcomes. Results:Five trials of tranexamic acid (TXA) met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. With a high certainty of evidence, when compared to placebo TXA reduced mortality at 24 h (relative risk = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.73-0.94) and at 1 month among trauma patients (0.91, 0.85-0.97). These results depend on the subgroup of patients with significant hemorrhage because in the subgroup of TBI there are no difference between TXA and placebo. TXA also reduced bleeding death and multiple organ failure whereas no difference in health-related quality of life. Conclusion:Balancing benefits and harms, TXA initiated in the pre-hospital setting can be used for patients experiencing major trauma with significant hemorrhage since it reduces the risk of mortality at 24 h and one month with no difference in terms of adverse effects when compared to p

Background. Major trauma describes serious injuries requiring lifesaving interventions or resulting in long-term disability; it represents about 8% of all deaths worldwide. Specific guidelines can help reduce deaths and disabilities, provided they adhere to high quality and trustworthiness standards. This article aims at introducing the development process of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, ISS (Italian National Institute of Health) guideline for major trauma integrated management. Methods. We applied the ISS methodological standards including the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy guidelines. Results. The scope was formulated by the multidisciplinary panel with stakeholders’ involvement; two guidelines were identified as appropriate sources for adolopment. Forty questions from the two source guidelines were prioritised and five new ones formulated. New systematic reviews or updates were conducted for each clinical question, Evidence to Decision frameworks developed or re-assessed and the recommendations formulated after public consultations and external review. The policy on conflicts of interest was applied throughout the process. Conclusions. Through a broad expertise representation, the early and wide stakeholders’ participation, a continual process for disclosure and management of conflict of interests and the transparency of the process, ISS standards are proving to be an efficient model for developing trustworthy clinical guidance.

Background: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and compare the accuracy of pre-hospital triage tools for major trauma in the context of the development of the Italian National Institute of Health guidelines on major trauma integrated management. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to November 2019 for studies investigating pre-hospital triage tools. The ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve and net clinical benefit for all selected triage tools were performed. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2. Certainty of the evidence was judged with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: We found 15 observational studies of 13 triage tools for adults and 11 for children. In adults, according to the ROC curve and the net clinical benefit, the most reliable tool was the Northern French Alps Trauma System (TRENAU), adopting injury severity score (ISS) > 15 as reference (sensitivity (Sn), 0.92; specificity (Sp), 0.41; 1 study; sample size, 2572; high certainty of the evidence). When mortality as reference was considered, the pre-hospital triage tool with the best net clinical benefit trajectory was the New Trauma Score (NTS) < 18 (Sn, 0.82; Sp, 0.86; 1 study; sample size, 1001; moderate certainty of the evidence). In children, high variability among all triage tools for sensitivity and specificity was found. Conclusion: Sensitivity and specificity varied across all available pre-hospital trauma triage tools. TRENAU and NTS are the best accurate triage tools for adults, whereas in the pediatric area a large variability prevents any firm conclusion.

Background: Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock were recently published. To date, the clinical evidence of the efficacy of REBOA is still debated. We aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of REBOA in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2020. All randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of REBOA compared to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) with/without REBOA or no-REBOA were eligible. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Primary outcomes were mortality, volume of infused blood components, health-related quality of life, time to haemorrhage control and any adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement in haemodynamic status and failure/success of REBOA technique. Results: We included 11 studies (5866 participants) ranging from fair to good quality. REBOA was associated with lower mortality when compared to RT (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20–0.74), whereas no difference was observed when REBOA was compared to no-REBOA (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 0.79–2.46). No significant difference in health-related quality of life between REBOA and RT (p = 0.766). The most commonly reported complications were amputation, haematoma and pseudoaneurysm. Sparse data and heterogeneity of reporting for all other outcomes prevented any estimate. Conclusions: Our findings on overall mortality suggest a positive effect of REBOA among non-compressible torso injuries when c