Luis Teodoro da Luz

Effect of thromboelastography (TEG®) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) on diagnosis of coagulopathy, transfusion guidance and mortality in trauma: descriptive systematic review

IntroductionThe understanding of coagulopathies in trauma has increased interest in thromboelastography (TEG®) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM®), which promptly evaluate the entire clotting process and may guide blood product therapy. Our objective was to review the evidence for their role in diagnosing early coagulopathies, guiding blood transfusion, and reducing mortality in injured patients.MethodsWe considered observational studies and randomized controlled trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) to February 2014 that examined TEG®/ROTEM® in adult trauma patients. We extracted data on demographics, diagnosis of early coagulopathies, blood transfusion, and mortality. We assessed methodologic quality by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies and QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies.ResultsFifty-five studies (12,489 patients) met inclusion criteria, including 38 prospective cohort studies, 15 retrospective cohort studies, two before-after studies, and no randomized trials. Methodologic quality was moderate (mean NOS score, 6.07; standard deviation, 0.49). With QUADAS-2, only three of 47 studies (6.4%) had a low risk of bias in all domains (patient selection, index test, reference standard and flow and timing); 37 of 47 studies (78.8%) had low concerns regarding applicability. Studies investigated TEG®/ROTEM® for diagnosis of early coagulopathies (n = 40) or for associations with blood-product transfusion (n = 25) or mortality (n = 24). Most (n = 52) were single-center studies. Techniques examined included rapid TEG® (n =12), ROTEM® (n = 18), TEG® (n = 23), or both TEG® and rapid TEG® (n = 2). Many TEG®/ROTEM® measurements were associated with early coagulopathies, including some (hypercoagulability, hyperfibrinolysis, platelet dysfunction) not assessed by routine screening coagulation tests. Standard measures of diagnostic accuracy were inconsistently reported. Many abnormalities predicted the need for massive transfusion and death, but predictive performance was not consistently superior to routine tests. One observational study suggested that a ROTEM® -based transfusion algorithm reduced blood-product transfusion, but TEG®/ROTEM®-based resuscitation was not associated with lower mortality in most studies.ConclusionsLimited evidence from observational data suggest that TEG®/ROTEM® tests diagnose early trauma coagulopathy and may predict blood-product transfusion and mortality in trauma. Effects on blood-product transfusion, mortality, and other patient-important outcomes remain unproven in randomized trials.

Thrombelastography (TEG®): practical considerations on its clinical use in trauma resuscitation.

BackgroundThrombelastography is a laboratorial test that measures viscoelastic changes of the entire clotting process. There is growing interest in its clinical use in trauma resuscitation, particularly for managing acute coagulopathy of trauma and assisting decision making concerning transfusion. This review focuses on the clinical use of thrombelastography in trauma, with practical points to consider on its use in civilian and military settings.MethodsA search in the literature using the terms “thrombelastography AND trauma” was performed in PUBMED database. We focused the review on the main clinical aspects of this viscoelastic method in diagnosing and treating patients with acute coagulopathy of trauma during initial resuscitation.ResultsThrombelastography is not a substitute for conventional laboratorial tests such as INR and aPTT but offers additional information and may guide blood transfusion. Thrombelastography can be used as a point of care test but requires multiple daily calibrations, should be performed by trained personnel and its technique requires standardization. While useful partial results may be available in minutes, the whole test may take as long as other conventional tests. The most important data provided by thrombelastography are clot strength and fibrinolysis. Clot strength measure can establish whether the bleeding is due to coagulopathy or not, and is the key information in thrombelastography-based transfusion algorithms. Thrombelastography is among the few tests that diagnose and quantify fibrinolysis and thus guide the use of anti-fibrinolytic drugs and blood products such as cryoprecipitate and fibrinogen concentrate. It may also diagnose platelet dysfunction and hypercoagulability and potentially prevent inappropriate transfusions of hemostatic blood products to non-coagulopathic patients.ConclusionsThrombelastography has characteristics of an ideal coagulation test for use in early trauma resuscitation. It has limitations, but may prove useful as an additional test. Future studies should evaluate its potential to guide blood transfusion and the understanding of the mechanisms of trauma coagulopathy.

TEG® and ROTEM® in trauma: similar test but different results?

IntroductionTransfusion in trauma is often empiric or based on traditional lab tests. Viscoelastic tests such as thromboelastography (TEG®) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) have been proposed as superior to traditional lab tests. Due to the similarities between the two tests, general opinion seems to consider them equivalent with interchangeable interpretations. However, it is not clear whether the results can be similarly interpreted. This review evaluates the comparability between TEG and ROTEM and performs a descriptive review of the parameters utilized in each test in adult trauma patients.MethodsPUBMED database was reviewed using the keywords “thromboelastography” and “compare”, between 2000 and 2011. Original studies directly comparing TEG® with ROTEM® in any area were retrieved. To verify the individual test parameter used in studies involving trauma patients, we further performed a review using the keywords “thromboelastography” and “trauma” in the PUBMED database.ResultsOnly 4 studies directly compared TEG® with ROTEM®. One in liver transplantation found that transfusion practice could differ depending on the device in use. Another in cardiac surgery concluded that all measurements are not completely interchangeable. The third article using commercially available plasma detected clinically significant differences in the results from the two devices. The fourth one was a head-to-head comparison of the technical aspects. The 24 articles reporting the use of viscoelastic tests in trauma patients, presented considerable heterogeneity.ConclusionBoth tests are potentially useful as means to rapidly diagnose coagulopathy, guide transfusion and determine outcome in trauma patients. Differences in the activators utilized in each device limit the direct comparability. Standardization and robust clinical trials comparing the two technologies are needed before these tests can be widely recommended for clinical use in trauma.

Efficacy and safety of the drugs used to reverse direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective and safe for prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic phenomena. However, managing DOACs during bleeding emergencies is challenging. A systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted on studies addressing efficacy and safety of the drugs used for reversal of DOACs.

Systematic Review of Human and Animal Studies Examining the Efficacy and Safety of N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and N-Acetylcysteine Amide (NACA) in Traumatic Brain Injury: Impact on Neurofunctional Outcome and Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress and Inflammation

Background No new therapies for traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been officially translated into current practice. At the tissue and cellular level, both inflammatory and oxidative processes may be exacerbated post-injury and contribute to further brain damage. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has the potential to downregulate both processes. This review focuses on the potential neuroprotective utility of NAC and N-acetylcysteine amide (NACA) post-TBI. Methods Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to July 2017. Studies that examined clinical and laboratory effects of NAC and NACA post-TBI in human and animal studies were included. Risk of bias was assessed in human and animal studies according to the design of each study (randomized or not). The primary outcome assessed was the effect of NAC/NACA treatment on functional outcome, while secondary outcomes included the impact on biomarkers of inflammation and oxidation. Due to the clinical and methodological heterogeneity observed across studies, no meta-analyses were conducted. Results Our analyses revealed only three human trials, including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 20 animal studies conducted using standardized animal models of brain injury. The two RCTs reported improvement in the functional outcome post-NAC/NACA administration. Overall, the evidence from animal studies is more robust and demonstrated substantial improvement of cognition and psychomotor performance following NAC/NACA use. Animal studies also reported significantly more cortical sparing, reduced apoptosis, and lower levels of biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress. No safety concerns were reported in any of the studies included in this analysis. Conclusion Evidence from the animal literature demonstrates a robust association for the prophylactic application of NAC and NACA post-TBI with improved neurofunctional outcomes and downregulation of inflammatory and oxidative stress markers at the tissue level. While a growing body of scientific literature suggests putative beneficial effects of NAC/NACA treatment for TBI, the lack of well-designed and controlled clinical investigations, evaluating therapeutic outcomes, prognostic biomarkers, and safety profiles, limits definitive interpretation and recommendations for its application in humans at this time.

What is the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation in adult trauma centres? Protocol for a systematic review

Introduction Quality improvement (QI) is mandatory in trauma centres but there is no prescription for doing successful QI. Considerable variation in implementation strategies and inconsistent use of evidence-based protocols therefore exist across centres. The quality of reporting on these strategies may limit the transferability of successful initiatives across centres. This systematic review will assess the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation within a trauma centre in terms of the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0). Methods and analysis We will search for English language articles published after 2010 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL electronic databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The database search will be supplemented by searching trial registries and grey literature online. Included studies will evaluate the effectiveness of guideline implementation in terms of change in clinical practice or improvement in patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be a global score reporting the proportion of studies respecting at least 80% of the SQUIRE 2.0 criteria and will be obtained based on the 18-items identified in the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Secondary outcome will be the risk of bias assessed with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies— of Interventions tool for observational cohort studies and with the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomised controlled trials. Meta-analyses will be conducted in randomised controlled trials to estimate the effectiveness of guideline implementation if studies are not heterogeneous. If meta-analyses are conducted, we will combine studies according to the risk of bias (low, moderate or high/unclear) in subgroup analyses. All study titles, abstracts and full-text screening will be completed independently and in duplicate by the review team members. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will also be done independently and in duplicate. Ethics and dissemination Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084273.