INTRODUCTION Post-traumatic hemorrhage is the most common preventable cause of death in trauma. Numerous small single-center studies have shown the superiority of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) along with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) over FFP alone in resuscitation of trauma patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate outcomes of severely injured trauma patients who received 4-PCC + FFP compared to FPP alone. METHODS Two-year (2015–2016) analysis of the American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. All adult (age ≥18 years) trauma patients who received 4-PCC + FFP or FFP alone were included. We excluded patients who were on preinjury anticoagulants. Patients were stratified into two groups: 4-PCC + FFP versus FFP alone and were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching for demographics, vitals, injury parameters, comorbidities, and level of trauma centers. Outcome measures were packed red blood cells, plasma and platelets transfused, complications, and mortality. RESULTS A total of 468 patients (4-PCC + FFP, 234; FFP alone, 234) were matched. Mean age was 50 ± 21 years; 70% were males; median injury severity score was 27 [20–36], and 86% had blunt injuries. Four-PCC + FFP was associated with a decreased requirement for packed red blood cells (6 units vs. 10 units; p = 0.02) and FFP (3 units vs. 6 units; p = 0.01) transfusion compared to FFP alone. Patients who received 4-PCC + FFP had a lower mortality (17.5% vs. 27.7%, p = 0.01) and lower rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.3% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.04) and acute kidney injury (2.1% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in the rates of deep venous thrombosis (p = 0.11) and pulmonary embolism (p = 0.33), adverse discharge disposition (p = 0.21), and platelets transfusion (p = 0.72) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Our study demonstrates that the use of 4-PCC as an adjunct to FFP is associated with improved survival and reduction in transfusion requirements compared to FFP alone in resuscitation of severely injured trauma patients. Further studies are required to evaluate the role of addition of PCC to the massive transfusion protocol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic studies, level III.

, B. (2019). Is early chemical thromboprophylaxis in patients with solid organ injury a solid decision?.

BACKGROUND Different frailty scores have been proposed to measure frailty. No study has compared their predictive ability to predict outcomes in trauma patients. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive ability of different frailty scores to predict complications, mortality, discharge disposition, and 30-day readmission in trauma patients. METHODS We performed a 2-year (2016–2017) prospective cohort analysis of all geriatric (age, >65 years) trauma patients. We calculated the following frailty scores on each patient; the Trauma-Specific Frailty Index (TSFI), the Modified Frailty Index (mFI) derived from the Canada Study of Health and Aging, the Rockwood Frailty Score (RFS), and the International Association of Nutrition and Aging 5-item a frailty scale (FS). Predictive models, using both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions, were created for each outcome. The unadjusted c-statistic was used to compare the predictive ability of each model. RESULTS A total of 341 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 76 ± 9 years, median Injury Severity Score was 13 [9–18], and median Glasgow Coma Scale score was 15 [12–15]. The unadjusted models indicated that both the TSFI and the RFS had comparable predictive value, as indicated by their unadjusted c-statistics, for mortality, in-hospital complications, skilled nursing facility disposition and 30-day readmission. Both TSFI and RFS models had unadjusted c-statistics indicating a relatively strong predictive ability for all outcomes. The unadjusted mFI and FS models did not have a strong predictive ability for predicting mortality and in-hospital complications. They also had a lower predictive ability for skilled nursing facility disposition and 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION There are significant differences in the predictive ability of the four commonly used frailty scores. The TSFI and the RFS are better predictors of outcomes compared with the mFI and the FS. The TSFI is easy to calculate and might be used as a universal frailty score in geriatric trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level III.

No abstract