Background
The Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial has demonstrated that damage control resuscitation, a massive transfusion strategy targeting a balanced delivery of plasma-platelet-RBC in a ratio of 1:1:1, results in improved survival at 3 hours and a reduction in deaths due to exsanguination in the first 24 hours compared to a 1:1:2 ratio. In light of these findings, we hypothesized that patients receiving 1:1:1 ratio would have improved survival after emergency laparotomy.
Methods
Severely injured patients predicted to receive a massive transfusion admitted to 12 level I North American trauma centers were randomized to 1:1:1 versus 1:1:2 as described in the PROPPR trial. From these patients, the subset that underwent an emergency laparotomy, defined previously in the literature as laparotomy within 90 minutes of arrival, were identified. We compared rates and timing of emergency laparotomy as well as post-surgical survival at 24-hours and 30-days.
Results
Of the 680 enrolled patients, 613 underwent a surgical procedure, 397 underwent a laparotomy, and 346 underwent an emergency laparotomy. The percentages of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were 51.5% (174/338) and 50.3% (172/342) for 1:1:1 and 1:1:2, respectively (p=0.20). Median time to laparotomy was 28 minutes in both treatment groups. Among patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy, the proportions of patients surviving to 24 hours and 30 days were similar between treatment arms, 24-hour survival was 86.8% (151/174) for 1:1:1 and 83.1% (143/172) for 1:1:2 (p=0.29), and 30-day 79.3% (138/174) for 1:1:1 and 75.0% (129/172) for 1:1:2 (p=0.30).
Conclusions
We found no evidence that resuscitation strategy affects whether a patient requires an emergency laparotomy, time to laparotomy, or subsequent survival.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study.