No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundEarly tranexamic acid (TXA) treatment reduces head injury deaths after traumatic brain injury (TBI). We used brain scans that were acquired as part of the routine clinical practice during the CRASH-3 trial (before unblinding) to examine the mechanism of action of TXA in TBI. Specifically, we explored the potential effects of TXA on intracranial haemorrhage and infarction.MethodsThis is a prospective substudy nested within the CRASH-3 trial, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of TXA (loading dose 1 g over 10 min, then 1 g infusion over 8 hours) in patients with isolated head injury. CRASH-3 trial patients were recruited between July 2012 and January 2019. Participants in the current substudy were a subset of trial patients enrolled at 10 hospitals in the UK and 4 in Malaysia, who had at least one CT head scan performed as part of the routine clinical practice within 28 days of randomisation. The primary outcome was the volume of intraparenchymal haemorrhage (ie, contusion) measured on a CT scan done after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were progressive intracranial haemorrhage (post-randomisation CT shows >25% of volume seen on pre-randomisation CT), new intracranial haemorrhage (any haemorrhage seen on post-randomisation CT but not on pre-randomisation CT), cerebral infarction (any infarction seen on any type of brain scan done post-randomisation, excluding infarction seen pre-randomisation) and intracranial haemorrhage volume (intraparenchymal + intraventricular + subdural + epidural) in those who underwent neurosurgical haemorrhage evacuation. We planned to conduct sensitivity analyses excluding patients who were severely injured at baseline. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using relative risks (RR) or hazard ratios (HR), and continuous outcomes using a linear mixed model.Results1767 patients were included in this substudy. One-third of the patients had a baseline GCS (Glasgow Coma Score) of 3 (n=579) and 24% had unilateral or bilateral unreactive pupils. 46% of patients were scanned pre-randomisation and post-randomisation (n=812/1767), 19% were scanned only pre-randomisation (n=341/1767) and 35% were scanned only post-randomisation (n=614/1767). In all patients, there was no evidence that TXA prevents intraparenchymal haemorrhage expansion (estimate=1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45) or intracranial haemorrhage expansion in patients who underwent neurosurgical haemorrhage evacuation (n=363) (estimate=0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.11). In patients scanned pre-randomisation and post-randomisation (n=812), there was no evidence that TXA reduces progressive haemorrhage (adjusted RR=0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13) and new haemorrhage (adjusted RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). When patients with unreactive pupils at baseline were excluded, there was evidence that TXA prevents new haemorrhage (adjusted RR=0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). In patients scanned post-randomisation (n=1431), there was no evidence of an increase in infarction with TXA (adjusted HR=1.28, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.76). A larger proportion of patients without (vs with) a post-randomisation scan died from head injury (38% vs 19%: RR=1.97, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.34, p<0.0001).ConclusionTXA may prevent new haemorrhage in patients with reactive pupils at baseline. This is consistent with the results of the CRASH-3 trial which found that TXA reduced head injury death in patients with at least one reactive pupil at baseline. However, the large number of patients without post-randomisation scans and the possibility that the availability of scan data depends on whether a patient received TXA, challenges the validity of inferences made using routinely collected scan data. This study highlights the limitations of using routinely collected scan data to examine the effects of TBI treatments.Trial registration numberISRCTN15088122.

Objective Prehospital emergency amputation is a rare procedure, which may be necessary to free a time-critical patient from entrapment. This study aimed to evaluate four techniques of cadaveric lower limb prehospital emergency amputation. Method A guillotine amputation of the distal femur was undertaken in fresh frozen self-donated cadavers. A prehospital doctor conducted a surgical amputation with Gigli saw or hacksaw for bone cuts and firefighters carried out the procedure using the reciprocating saw and Holmatro device. The primary outcome measures were time to full amputation and the number of attempts required. The secondary outcomes were observed quality of skin cut, soft tissue cut and CT assessment of the proximal bone. Observers also noted the potential risks to the rescuer or patient during the procedure. Results All techniques completed amputation within 91 s. The reciprocating saw was the quickest technique (22 s) but there was significant blood spattering and continuation of the cut to the surface under the leg. The Holmatro device took less than a minute. The quality of the proximal femur was acceptable with all methods, but 5 cm more proximal soft tissue damage was made by the Holmatro device. Conclusions Emergency prehospital guillotine amputation of the distal femur can effectively be performed using scalpel and paramedic shears with bone cuts by the Gigli saw or fire service hacksaw. The reciprocating saw could be used to cut bone if no other equipment was available but carried some risks. The Holmatro cutting device is a viable option for a life-threatening entrapment where only firefighters can safely access the patient, but would not be a recommended primary technique for medical staff.

Purpose The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. Methods A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. Results In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance. Conclusions Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.