Search

• Emergency resuscitative thoracotomy is a procedure rarely performed in French trauma centers. • However, it is a procedure that can reduce mortality and should be included in protocols for the management of severe trauma. • It is particularly effective in cases of patients with penetrating trauma arriving with signs of life. Emergency resuscitative thoracotomy (ERT) has been described as a potentially life-saving procedure for trauma patients who have been admitted in refractory shock or with recent loss of sign of life (SOL). This nationwide registry analysis aimed to describe the French practice of ERT. From 2015 to 2021, all severe trauma patients who underwent ERT were extracted from the TraumaBase→ registry. Demographic data, prehospital management and in-hospital outcomes were recorded to evaluate predictors of success-to rescue after ERT at 24-hour and 28-day. Only 10/26 Trauma centers have an effective practice of ERT, three of them perform more than 1 ERT/year. Sixty-six patients (74% male, 49/66) with a median age of 37 y/o [26–51], mostly with blunt trauma (52%, 35/66) were managed with ERT. The median pre-hospital time was 64 mins [45–89]. At admission, the median injury severity score was 35 [25–48], and 51% (16/30) of patients have lost SOL. ERT was associated with a massive transfusion protocol including 8 RBCs [6–13], 6 FFPs [4–10], and 0 PCs [0–1] in the first 6 h. The overall success-to-rescue after ERT at 24-h and 28-d were 27% and 15%, respectively. In case of refractory shock after penetrating trauma, survival was 64% at 24-hours and 47% at 28-days. ERT integrated into the trauma protocol remains a life-saving procedure that appears to be underutilized in France, despite significant success-to-rescue observed by trained teams for selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Does 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) reduce 24-hour blood product consumption in patients with trauma at risk of massive transfusion? Findings: In this superiority randomized trial involving 324 patients, there was no difference in total 24-hour blood product consumption among patients treated with 4F-PCC (12 U) vs placebo (11 U). More thromboembolic events occurred in the 4F-PCC group. Meaning: These findings do not support the administration of 4F-PCC in patients with trauma at risk of massive transfusion. Importance: Optimal transfusion strategies in traumatic hemorrhage are unknown. Reports suggest a beneficial effect of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) on blood product consumption. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of 4F-PCC administration in patients at risk of massive transfusion. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial in 12 French designated level I trauma centers from December 29, 2017, to August 31, 2021, involving consecutive patients with trauma at risk of massive transfusion. Follow-up was completed on August 31, 2021. Interventions: Intravenous administration of 1 mL/kg of 4F-PCC (25 IU of factor IX/kg) vs 1 mL/kg of saline solution (placebo). Patients, investigators, and data analysts were blinded to treatment assignment. All patients received early ratio-based transfusion (packed red blood cells:fresh frozen plasma ratio of 1:1 to 2:1) and were treated according to European traumatic hemorrhage guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 24-hour all blood product consumption (efficacy); arterial or venous thromboembolic events were a secondary outcome (safety). Results: Of 4313 patients with the highest trauma level activation, 350 were eligible for emergency inclusion, 327 were randomized, and 324 were analyzed (164 in the 4F-PCC group and 160 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) age of participants was 39 (27-56) years, Injury Severity Score was 36 (26-50 [major trauma]), and admission blood lactate level was 4.6 (2.8-7.4) mmol/L; prehospital arterial systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg in 179 of 324 patients (59%), 233 patients (73%) were men, and 226 (69%) required expedient hemorrhage control. There was no statistically or clinically significant between-group difference in median (IQR) total 24-hour blood product consumption (12 [5-19] U in the 4F-PCC group vs 11 [6-19] U in the placebo group; absolute difference, 0.2 U [95% CI, −2.99 to 3.33]; P =.72). In the 4F-PCC group, 56 patients (35%) presented with at least 1 thromboembolic event vs 37 patients (24%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 11% [95% CI, 1%-21%]; relative risk, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.10]; P =.03). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with trauma at risk of massive transfusion, there was no significant reduction of 24-hour blood product consumption after administration of 4F-PCC, but thromboembolic events were more common. These findings do not support systematic use of 4F-PCC in patients at risk of massive transfusion. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03218722 This randomized clinical trial examines whether systematic 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate administration combined with a ratio-based transfusion protocol is superior to ratio-based transfusion alone in reducing 24-hour total blood product consumption in patients at risk of massive transfusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transporting a severely injured patient directly to a trauma center (TC) is consensually considered optimal. Nevertheless, disagreement persists regarding the association between secondary transfer status and outcome. The aim of the study was to compare adjusted mortality between road traffic trauma patients directly or secondarily transported to a level 1 trauma center (TC) in an exclusive French trauma system with a physician staffed prehospital emergency medical system (EMS). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using 2015–2017 data from a regional trauma registry (Traumabase®), an administrative database on road-traffic accidents and prehospital-EMS records. Multivariate logistic regression models were computed to determine the role of the modality of admission on mortality and to identify factors associated with secondary transfer. The primary outcome was day-30 mortality. Results: During the study period, 121.955 victims of road-traffic accident were recorded among which 4412 trauma patients were admitted in the level 1 regional TCs, 4031 directly and 381 secondarily transferred from lower levels facilities. No significant association between all-cause 30-day mortality and the type of transport was observed (Odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.3–1.9]) when adjusted for potential confounders. Patients secondarily transferred were older, with low-energy mechanism and presented higher head and abdominal injury scores. Among all 947 death, 43 (4.5%) occurred in lower-level facilities. The population-based undertriage leading to death was 0.15%, 95%CI [0.12–0.19]. Conclusion: In an exclusive trauma system with physician staffed prehospital care, road-traffic victims secondarily transferred to a TC do not have an increased mortality when compared to directly transported patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]