RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with rate and severity of trauma. However, it is unclear whether there is an independent association between SES and mortality after injury. Our aim was to assess the relationship between SES and mortality from trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Trauma Audit and Research Network dataset. Participants were patients admitted to NHS hospitals for trauma between January 2015 and December 2015, and resident in England. Analyses used multivariate logistic regression with thirty-day mortality as the main outcome. Co-variates include SES derived from area-level deprivation, age, injury severity and comorbidity. All analyses were stratified into minor and major trauma. RESULTS: There were 48,652 admissions (68% for minor injury, ISS<15) included, and 3,792 deaths. Thirty-day mortality was 10% for patients over 85 with minor trauma, which was higher than major trauma for all age groups under 65. Deprivation was not significantly associated with major trauma mortality. For minor trauma, patients older than 40 had significantly higher aORs than the 0-15 age group. Both the most and second most deprived had significantly higher aORs (1.35 and 1.28 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of an independent relationship between SES and mortality after minor trauma, but not for major trauma. Our results identify that, for less severe trauma, older patients and patients with low SES with have an increased risk of 30-day mortality. Policy makers and service providers should consider extending the provision of 'major trauma' healthcare delivery to this at-risk population.
