We shall not bleed to death - Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

We shall not bleed to death - Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma

on

  • 302 views

Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma presented at 2014 Singapore Trauma Conference - 12.4.14

Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma presented at 2014 Singapore Trauma Conference - 12.4.14
Review and update on transfusion trends.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
302
Views on SlideShare
302
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
16
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    We shall not bleed to death - Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma We shall not bleed to death - Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma Presentation Transcript

    • Tan Hon Liang SingaporeGeneral Hospital Anaesthesiology and Critical Care
    • Fluid Resuscitation inTrauma  What is aTrauma Conference without a talk on Fluid Resuscitation? ……….To Death
    • No conflicts of interest to disclose
    • Nothing good comes out of war ….
    • …except trauma research.
    • Fluid Resuscitation inTrauma  WorldWar 1: Preoperative resuscitation uncommon.  WorldWar 2: Resuscitation with fluids and blood.  VietnamWar: 3 crystalloid : 1 RBC ratio.  1980s: Advent of damage control surgery.  Middle East Conflict : United States Armed Forces added plasma as a resuscitation fluid.
    • So what should we give?
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • Goals ofTrauma Resuscitation  Vital organ perfusion while avoiding the “bloody” vicious cycle: 1. Continued bleeding 2. Hypothermia 3. Acidosis 4. Coagulopathy
    • Minimizing Continued Bleeding  Nothing to do with what fluid or ratios.  “Restrained resuscitation”. “Permissive hypotension”.  Generally target systolic blood pressure 80-90 mmHg if no traumatic brain injury (TBI).  But mean arterial pressure of 80 mmHg ifTBI present.
    • Minimizing Hypothermia  Nothing to do with what fluid or ratios.  But about how you give it and temperature/environment management.  “Active warming”, “warmed fluids”, “climate control”.  Admission hypothermia was independently associated with increased odds of death 3.03. (95% CI 2.62-3.51)
    • Acidosis and Coagulopathy  When fluid type and ratios may matter.  What is available?  Crystalloids  Colloids  What is less available?  Blood
    • Let’s start with crystalloids
    • Normal Saline?
    • Crystalloids  0.9% Sodium Chloride  Nothing normal about “normal saline”: pH 7.0.  NS associated with lower systemic vascular resistance, worse acidosis and coagulopathy in animal hemorrhage models.  Need to give quite a bit.  Little doubt that it is NOTideal.
    • Hypertonic Saline then?
    • Crystalloids  Hypertonic saline  ICP decreased by a mean of 8.3 mm Hg (P < 0.0001)  PbtO2 improved by 3.1 mm Hg (P < 0.01).  ICP of more than 31 mm Hg decreased by 14.2 mm Hg.  CPP values of less than 70 mm Hg increased by a mean of 6 mm Hg (P < 0.0001).  Sounds great!
    • Crystalloids  Hypertonic Saline  No difference in neurological function at six months  No difference in 28 day mortality
    • Hypertonic Saline doesn’t quite work. Is it because of Chloride?
    • The Problem of Chloride
    • Chloride  Chloride and metabolic acidosis/strong ion acidosis  Chloride and coagulopathy  Chloride and kidney injury  Chloride and reduced splanchnic perfusion
    • Crystalloids  Before (760 patients) vs After (773 patients) Study, Australia.  ~200 mmol of chloride less.  Hyperchloridemia associated with double the odds of RIFLE-defined kidney injury (p = .004). Before After P Serum Cr Rise (umol/L) 22.6 14.8 0.03 AKI incidence 14% 8.4% 0.001 Use of RRT 10% 6.3% 0.005
    • So chloride laden crystalloids are not good…
    • Let’s remove Chloride then! Lactated solution better?
    • Lactated solutions Hypotonicity TBI
    • Crystalloids  Severe (MAP: 25 to 30 mmHg) vs Moderate (MAP: 40 to 45 mmHg)  Resuscitated with RS or RL.  Observed for 150 min.  Moderate shock: 100% survived and improved.  Severe shock group:  25% of RS rats survived.  100% of RL rats died before the end of the study period with worsened acid-base and metabolic parameters.
    • So Lactated solution may not be better. How about replacing lactate?
    • Crystalloids  Plasma-Lyte A: acetate and gluconate instead.  46 patients.  Better acid base and biochemistry with Plasma-lyte A, but no difference in urine output and mortality.  Small numbers.Too early to say.
    • Hmm… crystalloids CMI, how about colloids?
    • Colloids  Hydroxyethyl starch  Bad press: increase renal failure and mortality  115 patients. SouthAfrica. Blunt and Penetrating injury.  Found better lactate clearance and less renal failure In penetrating trauma.  No firm conclusions drawn for blunt trauma.
    • Colloids  Did not emphasize:  Transfusion needs in HES130/0.4 blunt trauma patients.  RBC 2x more, FFP 3x more, Platelets 5x more (All P < 0.005)!  Renal injury and lactate clearance were post hoc and not pre- specified end points!  Baseline characteristics were not equal!  HES 130/0.4 group: 5 years younger, 5kg lighter with 20% lower baseline lactate than comparator.
    • Colloids Not published
    • So semi-synthetic colloid is also not the answer…
    • How about a human derived colloid? Albumin?
    • Colloids  Albumin  SAFE Study: post hoc: higher mortality with albumin inTBI.  No benefit in burn patients given 14 days of 5% albumin.  Expensive, no distinct advantage during initial presentation.  Hidden chloride.
    • Crystalloid vs Colloid Rock and a hard place
    • Colloid vs Crystalloid Colloid No. of Trials Patients Pooled RR 95% CI Albumin/plasm a Protein 24 9920 1.01 0.93 to 1.10 HES 25 9147 1.10 1.02 to 1.19 Modified Gelatin 11 506 0.91 0.49 to 1.72 Dextran 9 834 1.24 0.94 to 1.65 Dextran in hypertonic crystalloid 9 1985 0.91 0.71 to 1.06
    • Colloid vs Crystalloid “There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials that resuscitation using colloids compared with crystalloids reduces the risk of death in patients with trauma, burns or following surgery.The use of hydroxyethyl starch might even increase mortality.”
    • Colloid vs Crystalloid  2857 patients in Europe. 57 centres.  Multicenter, randomized clinical trial stratified by case mix (sepsis, trauma, or hypovolemic shock without sepsis or trauma).  No difference in 28-day mortality.  90-day mortality was lower (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]; P = 0.03).  “this finding should be considered exploratory and requires further study before reaching conclusions about efficacy.”
    • Crystalloid and Colloid stalemate None proven better. Avoid HES if you can.
    • Blood is thicker than water, but is it better?
    • Blood Products  Red Blood CellsTransfusion  Temperature  Acid-base  electrolyte – K, Ca,  TRALI  MassiveTransfusion Coagulopathy  Multifactorial : •Plasma •TRALI •Platelets •Cryoprecipitate
    • Blood Product Ratios Military Data  Retrospective. 246 MT patients. US combat support hospital.  Logistic regression, plasma to RBC ratio independently associated with survival (odds ratio 8.6, 95% confidence interval 2.1-35.2). Plasma : RBC Overall mortality rate Hemorrhage mortality rate 1:8 65% 92.5% 1:2.5 34% 78% 1:1.4 19% 37%
    • Blood Product Ratios Civilian Data  Prospective cohort study. 1245 patients. 10 US Level 1 Trauma Centre.  Increased plasma : RBC and platelets : RBC ratios independently associated with decreased early mortality, due to hemorrhage.  Patients with ratios less than 1:2 were 3 to 4 times more likely to die than patients with ratios of 1:1 or higher.
    • Platelet : Red Cell ratios? Does it matter?
    • Blood Product Ratios  6,123 citations: no RCTs identified.  Seven observational studies (4,230 patients): Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis.  5 studies involving only patients requiring massive transfusions  4 observed a lower mortality with higher ratios.  2 studies involving non-massively bleeding patients  observed no benefit of using higher ratios.
    • So is 1:1:1 the answer?
    • Blood Products
    • So how?
    • Blood Products  24-hour survival  96 of 100 (96%) versus 223 of 254 (88%), (p = 0.018)  30-day survival  95% to 82%, (p = 0.002)
    • Warm fresh blood is the answer?
    • Pragmatically speaking…
    • Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelets and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR)  Phase III trial (680 patients), USA and Canada.  http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01545232  StartedAugust 2012  Completed recruitment December 2013
    • Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelets and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR)  Intervention:  Primary outcomes:  24-hour  30-day mortality among subjects predicted to receive massive transfusion Group 1 6 FFP : 6 Platelet (1 CSP) : 6 RBC 1:1:1 Group 2 Alternating 3 FFP : 0 Platelet : 6 RBC 3 FFP : 6 Platelet (1 CSP) : 6 RBC 1:1:2
    • And so we wait…
    • IdealTrauma Resuscitation Fluid –Will we get there?
    • NO
    • Why Not?  What Trauma?  Penetrating  Blunt  Head injury  Burns  Combinations  Who getsTrauma  Paediatrics  Adult  Elderly  Premorbids Different Resuscitation Goals
    • Conclusion  We shall not bleed to death  if…  Correct type of fluid for the  Correct patient for the  Correct injury in the  Correct amounts or ratios for the  Correct end points.
    • Conclusion  Until then… we shall not:  Give cold fluids  Give excessive chloride  Give too little/much blood products  (ForgetTranexamic acid)  Forget the context of the patient, injury and individualized resuscitation goals.
    • ThankYou. tan.hon.liang@sgh.com.sg