Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution. The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used 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 reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence 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. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013. The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome. A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.

/pdf/the-european-guideline-on-management-of-major-bleeding-and-50g3zxrre8.pdf

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition

The world-wide impact of traumatic injury and associated hemorrhage on human health and well-being cannot be overstated. Twelve percent of the global disease burden is the result of violence or accidental injury. Hemorrhage is responsible for 30 to 40% of trauma mortality, and of these deaths, 33 to 56% occur during the prehospital period. Among those who reach care, early mortality is caused by continued hemorrhage, coagulopathy, and incomplete resuscitation. The techniques of early care, including blood transfusion, may underlie late mortality and long-term morbidity. While the volume of blood lost cannot be measured, physiologic and chemical measures and the number of units of blood given are readily recorded and analyzed. Improvements in early hemorrhage control and resuscitation and the prevention and aggressive treatment of coagulopathy appear to have the greatest potential to improve outcomes in severely injured trauma patients.

Impact of hemorrhage on trauma outcome: an overview of epidemiology, clinical presentations, and therapeutic considerations.

Introduction: Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient. When these recommendations are implemented patient outcomes may be improved. Methods: The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document represents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007 and updated in 2010. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature. Results: Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on the appropriate use of vasopressors and inotropic agents, and reflect an awareness of the growing number of patients in the population at large treated with antiplatelet agents and/or oral anticoagulants. The current guideline also includes recommendations and a discussion of thromboprophylactic strategies for all patients following traumatic injury. The most significant addition is a new section that discusses the need for every institution to develop, implement and adhere to an evidence-based clinical protocol to manage traumatically injured patients. The remaining recommendations have been re-evaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies. Conclusions: A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to trauma care and mechanisms with which to ensure that established protocols are consistently implemented will ensure a uniform and high standard of care across Europe and beyond.

/pdf/management-of-bleeding-and-coagulopathy-following-major-127uh3smia.pdf

Management of bleeding and coagulopathy following major trauma: an updated European guideline

IntroductionEvidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient. When these recommendations are implemented patient outcomes may be improved.MethodsThe multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document represents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007 and updated in 2010. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature.ResultsKey changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on the appropriate use of vasopressors and inotropic agents, and reflect an awareness of the growing number of patients in the population at large treated with antiplatelet agents and/or oral anticoagulants. The current guideline also includes recommendations and a discussion of thromboprophylactic strategies for all patients following traumatic injury. The most significant addition is a new section that discusses the need for every institution to develop, implement and adhere to an evidence-based clinical protocol to manage traumatically injured patients. The remaining recommendations have been re-evaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies.ConclusionsA comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to trauma care and mechanisms with which to ensure that established protocols are consistently implemented will ensure a uniform and high standard of care across Europe and beyond.http://ccforum.com/content/17/4/442

This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance. Copyedited and fully formatted PDF and full text (HTML) versions will be made available soon. Management of bleeding and coagulopathy following major trauma: an updated European guideline

In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.

Guidelines for field triage of injured patients recommendations of the national expert panel on field triage.

BACKGROUND: We have evaluated our recent experience as a Level I trauma center to test the hypothesis that preinjury anticoagulation adversely affects the morbidity and mortality of trauma patients with an intracranial injury. METHODS: Records of 380 patients admitted to the trauma service from January 1997 to December 1998 who at the time of admission were taking warfarin, low-molecular-weight heparin, aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, clopidogrel, dipyridamole, pentoxifylline, or naproxen were reviewed. Thirty-seven patients with intracranial injuries were identified and compared with a matched (age, gender, mechanism, and severity of injury) control group of 37 patients with similar head injury but not taking any anticoagulant randomly selected from the trauma registry for that same time period. RESULTS: The control and anticoagulated groups were comparable in terms of age, 75 +/- 8 versus 74 +/- 11 years (p = 0.655); gender, 22 men/15 women versus 21 men/16 women; mechanism of injury, 30 falls/7 motor vehicle crashes versus 30 falls/7 motor vehicle crashes; and length of hospital stay, 11 +/- 14 versus 10 +/- 11 days (p = 0.853). In the anticoagulated group, the mean Injury Severity Score was 17.0 +/- 7.8 and the mean Glasgow Coma Scale score was 11.8 +/- 4.0; these were not significantly different from the control group, which had a mean Injury Severity Score of 19.8 +/- 8.1 (p = 0.143) and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12.5 +/- 2.6 (p = 0.378). There were 14 deaths (38%) in the anticoagulation group, versus 3 deaths in the control group (8%) (p = 0.006). In the anticoagulation group, 4 of 12 patients (33%) taking warfarin died, whereas 9 of 19 patients (47%) taking aspirin died (p = 0.285). All deaths were secondary to head injuries; all deaths in the control group and all but one in the anticoagulated group were the result of a fall; 6 of 10 anticoagulated patients who fell on stairs died, and 5 of these were taking aspirin only. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that the trauma patient with preinjury anticoagulation such as warfarin or even aspirin who has an intracranial injury has a four- to fivefold higher risk of death than the nonanticoagulated patient. The efficacy of reversing the anticoagulant effect at the time of hospital admission remains to be evaluated. Language: en

Intracranial Complications of Preinjury Anticoagulation in Trauma Patients with Head Injury

Background: Recent literature on elderly patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage receiving preinjury antiplatelet agents shows a mortality rate of 47%. Methods: In a retrospective analysis, patients older than 50 years presenting to the hospital over the past 4 years with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage and the use of aspirin, clopidogrel, or a combination were compared with a control group that had hemorrhage but no antiplatelet medications. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, and injury scores were recorded. Results: No significant differences were found between the 90 study patients and the 89 control subjects in terms of demographics, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Score, or hospital length of stay. Patients receiving antiplatelet therapy had significantly more comorbid conditions (71% vs. 35%; p < 0.001). In this series, 21 study patients and 8 control patients died (23% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.016). Age older than 76 years and a Glasgow Coma Score lower than 12 were correlated significantly with increased mortality. Conclusions: The use of antiplatelet agents with elderly trauma patients significantly increases the risk of mortality when head injury involves intracranial hemorrhage.

Effects of Antiplatelet Agents on Outcomes for Elderly Patients With Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage

Background: The frequency of use of warfarin anticoagulation increases significantly in the elderly population. It remains controversial whether this puts these patients at increased risk for hemorrhagic complications after trauma. Methods: We prospectively evaluated consecutive trauma patients who were taking warfarin and compared their outcomes to a group of age-matched patients with head injuries but not taking warfarin. Results: One hundred fifty-nine trauma patients on warfarin were evaluated, 94 (59%) with some type of head trauma; 25 of these 94 patients (27%) had documented intracranial trauma. Fifteen patients died (9.4%); they had an international normalized ratio of 3.3 ± 1.6 versus 3.0 ± 2.1 for survivors in the warfarin group (p = 0.585). Twelve deaths were in the group of 25 patients with intracranial injuries (48%). Three patients without head injury died (5%) of other causes not related to warfarin or hemorrhage at a mean of 13 days after admission. Ten of 12 patients on warfarin with intracranial injuries who died had documented loss of consciousness (LOC); two patients who died secondary to an isolated intracranial injury had no LOC. Of 70 age-matched patients with head trauma not taking warfarin, 47 (67%) had intracranial injury and 5 of these died (10%) (p < 0.001 for both values compared with study patients). There were no significant differences for patients with intracranial injury comparing those on warfarin and those who were not in terms of age, gender, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, or Glasgow Come Scale score. Conclusion: We conclude that the preinjury use of warfarin does not place the trauma patient at increased risk for fatal hemorrhagic complications in the absence of head trauma. Furthermore, the presence of a head trauma alone is not predictive of mortality. However, the presence of intracranial injury is strongly associated with a mortality rate that is significantly higher than patients with head trauma who are not taking warfarin. LOC is also associated with mortality, but the absence of loss of consciousness does not reliably indicate the absence of intracranial injury or risk of death.

Alfred A. Mina

Papers

Intracranial Complications of Preinjury Anticoagulation in Trauma Patients with Head Injury

Effects of Antiplatelet Agents on Outcomes for Elderly Patients With Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage

Complications of preinjury warfarin use in the trauma patient.