December 29, 2013

Powdered Plasma Performed Particularly Perfect in Perishing Piggies!



This week I came across a study in JAMA Surgery (formerly Archives of Surgery) that was published wayyyy back in 2009. This paper looked at the effectiveness of lyophilized plasma (LP) used to resuscitate severely injured, shocked swine and, well, I found it to be pretty remarkable.

What they did:


Prior to the start of the study:
  • The investigators exsanguinated healthy juvenile swine carefully into citrated blood donation bags. 
  • The whole blood was then centrifuged and plasma was collected. At this point, the plasma was analyzed for levels of fibrinogen, protein C, antithrombin III, PT, PTT, and factors II, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII.
  • 1/2 of the collected plasma was stored and shipped at -20°C to a lyophilization laboratory; the other half was frozen and stored as Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP).
  • After lyophilization, the powdered plasma was returned and then stored at room temperature for 1 month.
  • The powdered plasma was re-analyzed for the aforementioned parameters just prior to administration on the day of the study.

On the day of the study:


  • 32 healthy yorkshire swine were split into 4 groups (n=8/group).
    1. FFP only resuscitation
    2. LP only resuscitation
    3. FFP + PRBC with 1:1 ratio resuscitation
    4. LP + PRBC with 1:1 ratio resuscitation
  • The swine were first given identical femur and overlying soft-tissue injuries using a captive bolt gun.
  • Next, a laparotomy was performed and the pigs were cooled to 33°C using chilled intraperitoneal isotonic saline while simultaneously removing 60% of their estimated blood volume via a central line.
  • The swine were then left in this state for 30 minutes to simulate prolonged shock complicated with hypothermia.
  • Next, the swine were infused with normal saline at 3x the controlled hemorrhage volume to induce acidosis and dilutional coagulopathy.
  • Finally, all animals received a grade V liver injury followed by 30 seconds of uncontrolled hemorrhage. 
  • The intervention period began with the packing of the liver with pre-weighed laparotomy sponges → each animal received resuscitation according to the study protocol. Volume infused to each pig was equal to the volume lost during controlled hemorrhage.

What they found:


Clotting profile of LP compared to FRESH, NEVER-FROZEN plasma:

  • Factor V: 84% activity
  • Factor VIII: 84% activity
  • Factor IX: 100% activity
  • Antithrombin III: 93% activity
  • INR: prolonged by 9%
  • PTT: prolonged by 13%



Performance between the groups:

What they concluded:


This study shows that the lyophilization process results in a modest reduction in clotting factor activity in vitro. Interestingly, there was no evidence of this reduction in the in vivo animal study. The study also shows that LP is as safe and effective as FFP for resuscitation after severe multisystem injury.

Final thoughts:


In my opinion, this study was extremely well done. The investigators utilized a model that represents the patients we see in the field - injured, cold, acidemic, and coagulopathic. 

Obviously, with any lab-based animal study, there will be flaws by design. The small sample size makes the waters a bit murkier as well. Because of these flaws, we're left with some unanswered questions:
  1. Does swine plasma exactly reflect the physiology of human plasma? 
  2. Would storing the LP on the shelf for longer than 1 month alter the efficacy? 
  3. Would the LP use result in more episodes of meaningful VTE complications if the investigators kept the pigs alive?
  4. Did reconstitution of the LP with a vitamin-C containing solution synergize efficacy?
However, what was made clear is LP appears to be at least as effective as FFP in trauma resuscitation (albeit, with small sample size). This study should be used as a springboard for further investigation and human trials should be aggressively sought. 

In closing, as our friend Peter Griffin would say....


I'd love to hear your thoughts, ladies and gents! 

December 15, 2013

Emergency Transfusion Score (ETS)



During the initial phases of trauma resuscitation, one of the most complex tasks for the Resuscitationist is making the decision to activate the Massive Transfusion Protocol. While clinician gestalt is highly sensitive, the specificity is variable leading to large rates of either over or undertriage. While some argue, "it's better to be safe than sorry", buying into a liberal transfusion approach (overtriage) is dangerous not only to the patient (TRALI, TACO, anaphylactoid reactions), but also to the institution ($$$). Thus, over the last decade, a multitude of prediction tools were developed. One score I just became familiar with is the Emergency Transfusion Score (ETS).

What is it?

  • The ETS contains 9 predictive values (all of differing weights ['coefficients']) based on regression analysis of retrospectively collected data from 1,103 patients admitted to a single institution over a 4-year period. [1]
  • ETS was later validated again by Kuhne et al with prospectively collected data from 481 patients on admission to a single-institution over a 17-month period. [2]
  • Data from the latter validation concluded that an ETS ≥ 3 is a positive test and the massive transfusion protocol should therefore be initiated. 

What are the variables?


Variable Coefficient p Value
Age (years) < 0.001
20 - 60 0.5
> 60 1.5
Admission from scene of accident 1 < 0.004
Injury mechanism
Traffic Accident 1 < 0.002
Fall > 3m 1
Systolic Blood Pressure
0-90 mmHg 2.5 < 0.001
90-120 mmHg 1.5
Pelvic Ring Disruption 1.5 < 0.001
Abdominal Free Fluid (FAST) 2 < 0.001

How did ETS perform? [2]



ETS ≥ 2 ETS ≥ 3 ETS ≥ 4
Sensitivity 100% 97.5% 84.2%
Specificity 44.2% 68% 92.5%
PPV 11.5% 22.2% 31.4%
NPV 100% 99.7% 98.4
LR+ 1.79 3.16 11.23
LR- 0 0.04 0.17

Conclusion


The ETS has been proven on 2 occasions to be moderately accurate in the prediction in the need (or lack of need) for massive transfusion. Kuhne et al [2] claimed that their institution was able to save a substantial amount of blood (176 MT+ vs 481 MT+) and money ($97,600 USD saved) compared to their traditional "clinician gestalt" approach. Obviously, it seems like their "standard" approach is wildly liberal so it would be wise to interpret these savings carefully in your institution.

Having said that, 3 caveats with ETS are:
  1. Remembering the coefficient variable at the bedside without some form of a checklist would be daunting.
  2. ETS has not been validated to be used in patients with penetrating trauma.
  3. The ETS and the ABC Score perform similarly, however the ABC score is much easier to perform/remember. 

At the end of the day, I'm still partial to the ABC score.

Bibliography:

December 9, 2013

CRYOSTAT Results Are Near!

This morning, Dr. Karim Brohi tweeted this:



Results are close, folks! Stay tuned!!


For more info on CRYOSTAT, visit http://hurtregistry.org/coagulation-factor-concentrates/cryoprecipitate/