Tag Archives: resuscitation

General

Does Hemostatic Resuscitation Really Work?

Leave a comment

Hemostatic resuscitation (HR) is the new buzzword (buzz phrase?) these days. The new ATLS course touts it as a big change, and quite a few publications are being written about it. But, like many new things (think Factor VII), will it stand the test of time?

It has long been recognized that hemorrhage from trauma is bad. Mortality rates are high, and traditional management with crystalloids and then blood products leads to persistent coagulopathy, troublesome bleeding, tissue injury, and finally death. HR was devised to address the early coagulopathy. It concentrates on early coag correction with plasma and platelets, permissive hypotension, and rapid definitive correction of hemorrhage.

The end result of HR has been measured, and both organ perfusion and coagulopathy can be corrected with it. Unfortunately, these measurements are typically taken once hemorrhage control has been achieved. Is looking at (or beyond) the endpoint really the best way to gauge its effectiveness? 

A robust multicenter study scrutinized looked at coagulopathy correction and organ perfusion during active hemostatic resuscitation. They used ROTEM to gauge the former, and lactate levels for the latter. Values were measured on arrival and after administration of every 4 units of blood. Only patients who received at least 4 units were included (106 subjects).

Here are the factoids:

  • Average admission lactate was 6.2 meq/L, so these patients were sick
  • Patients with a lactate > 5 did not clear it until after hemorrhage was controlled and no further blood was needed
  • 43% of patients were coagulopathic by ROTEM on arrival. 
  • Coagulopathy increased for every 4 units of blood given, despite a plasma infusion ratio of close to 1:1 throughout their resuscitation

Bottom line: This was a well-done study on a relatively large number of patients, although a number of weaknesses and potential improvements are pointed out in the discussion. There’s a lot of data in the paper, and I urge you to read it in depth. But it seems to show that hemostatic resuscitation is not necessarily doing what we want it to do during the acute phase of hemorrhage. Both bleeding AND transfusions must be stopped before it appears to work. And even then, there is a delay before ROTEM and lactate parameters return to normal. For now, rapid control of hemorrhage is of utmost importance. We still need to figure out how tools like ROTEM or TEG and various serum markers will help us while we accomplish it.

Reference: Hemostatic resuscitation is neither hemostatic nor resuscitative in trauma hemorrhage. J Trauma 76(3):561-568, 2014.

General

Does Hemostatic Resuscitation Really Work?

Leave a comment

Hemostatic resuscitation (HR) is the new buzzword (buzz phrase?) these days. The new ATLS course touts it as a big change, and quite a few publications are being written about it. But, like many new things (think Factor VII), will it stand the test of time?

It has long been recognized that hemorrhage from trauma is bad. Mortality rates are high, and traditional management with crystalloids and then blood products leads to persistent coagulopathy, troublesome bleeding, tissue injury, and finally death. HR was devised to address the early coagulopathy. It concentrates on early coag correction with plasma and platelets, permissive hypotension, and rapid definitive correction of hemorrhage.

The end result of HR has been measured, and both organ perfusion and coagulopathy can be corrected with it. Unfortunately, these measurements are typically taken once hemorrhage control has been achieved. Is looking at (or beyond) the endpoint really the best way to gauge its effectiveness? 

A robust multicenter study scrutinized looked at coagulopathy correction and organ perfusion during active hemostatic resuscitation. They used ROTEM to gauge the former, and lactate levels for the latter. Values were measured on arrival and after administration of every 4 units of blood. Only patients who received at least 4 units were included (106 subjects).

Here are the factoids:

  • Average admission lactate was 6.2 meq/L, so these patients were sick
  • Patients with a lactate > 5 did not clear it until after hemorrhage was controlled and no further blood was needed
  • 43% of patients were coagulopathic by ROTEM on arrival. 
  • Coagulopathy increased for every 4 units of blood given, despite a plasma infusion ratio of close to 1:1 throughout their resuscitation

Bottom line: This was a well-done study on a relatively large number of patients, although a number of weaknesses and potential improvements are pointed out in the discussion. There’s a lot of data in the paper, and I urge you to read it in depth. But it seems to show that hemostatic resuscitation is not necessarily doing what we want it to do during the acute phase of hemorrhage. Both bleeding AND transfusions must be stopped before it appears to work. And even then, there is a delay before ROTEM and lactate parameters return to normal. For now, rapid control of hemorrhage is of utmost importance. We still need to figure out how tools like ROTEM or TEG and various serum markers will help us while we accomplish it.

Reference: Hemostatic resuscitation is neither hemostatic nor resuscitative in trauma hemorrhage. J Trauma 76(3):561-568, 2014.

General

Where Do You Resuscitate Your Trauma Patients?

Leave a comment

Sounds like an easy question, right? In the trauma resuscitation room! But how long can (should) they stay there? Can they leave for testing and come back? As you may expect, there are a lot of variables to consider.

All major trauma patients should start in the resuscitation room. In a few institutions around the world this may be an OR, but this is uncommon. I’m talking about major injuries, multiple fractures, significant potential for blood loss, not the minor stuff. Once the necessary stabilization and evaluation is complete, the patient may need further diagnostics like CT or plain xrays. But once those are done, where does the patient with ongoing resuscitation needs go?

In many cases, they end up back in the ED. Some surgical specialists may want to evaluate them there. They may need minor procedures like suturing or traction pin placement. An ICU bed might not be immediately available. But is this really the right place?

Unfortunately, it isn’t. This class of patient needs ICU care, which includes very close monitoring and ongoing attention to resuscitation. This level of care is just not available in a busy emergency ward. The physicians are seeing other patients, and the nurses may be less familiar with continuously providing this level of care. Arterial line and ICP placement / monitoring is difficult. It’s really not the right place to be.

Bottom line: There are only two places for a complex patient with ongoing resuscitation needs: a surgical ICU or an operating room. The choice depends on whether the patient really needs an operation now. If not, they should be resuscitated in an ICU prior to general anesthesia. The trauma physician must triage all requests for tests or minor procedures from consultants, keeping the overall patient condition in mind. If a particular test will not significantly alter near-term management, it must be postponed. If an ICU bed is not available, the ED resuscitation room may be the only alternative. In this case, a nurse (preferably with ICU experience) must stay with the patient at all times. And an experienced trauma physician should ideally be there as well, if not in person, at least by phone (and quickly). Finally, get the patient to an ICU as soon as humanly possible!

General
Gallery Leave a comment

Is Too Much Crystalloid a Bad Thing?

All trauma centers have massive transfusion protocols, and they typically spell out the approximate ratios of blood to plasma to platelets. But they do not address the use (or overuse) of crystalloid during these large volume resuscitations.

A multicenter, prospective study was carried out looking at the outcomes after resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock using massive transfusion (at least 10u PRBC in 24 hrs). The patients were severely injured (average ISS 34), and overall mortality and incidence of multi-organ failure was 21% and 65%, respectively. The median amount of crystalloid given was 17 liters, and median red cell transfusion was 14 units in 24 hours.

The authors found that if the crystalloid to PRBC ratio exceeded 1.5:1, morbidity increased significantly. The incidence of multiple organ failure doubled, ARDS tripled, and abdominal compartment quintupled! The authors suggested further research, and did not provide specific strategies for decreasing early crystalloid.

Bottom line: As expected, giving so much crystalloid that we turn people into the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man is not good. While waiting for additional research, it is probably prudent to try to rapidly achieve definitive control of bleeding and apply gentle use of pressors to decrease the total crystalloid given during resuscitation.

Reference: The crystalloid / packed red blood cell ratio following massive transfusion: when less is more. Presented at the 24th Annual Scientific Assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, January 2011.