Effect of treatment delay on the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytics in acute severe haemorrhage: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data from 40 138 bleeding patients (original) (raw)
Related papers
Wellcome open research, 2017
Introduction: The Anti-fibrinolytics Trialists Collaboration aims to increase knowledge about the effectiveness and safety of anti-fibrinolytic treatment by conducting individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials. This article presents the statistical analysis plan for an IPD meta-analysis of the effects of anti-fibrinolytics for acute intracranial haemorrhage. Methods: The protocol for the IPD meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019128260). We will conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with 500 patients or more assessing the effects of anti-fibrinolytics in acute intracranial haemorrhage. The primary outcomes will be 1) death from stroke or head injury within 30 days of randomisation, and 2) death from stroke or head injury, or dependency within 90 days of randomisation. The primary outcomes will be limited to patients treated within three hours of injury or stroke onset. We will report treatment effects using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We use logistic regression models to examine how the effect of anti-fibrinolytics vary by time to treatment, severity of intracranial bleeding, and age. We will also examine the effect of anti-fibrinolytics on secondary outcomes including death, dependency, vascular occlusive events, seizures, and neurological outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be assessed in all patients irrespective of time of treatment. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis will examine important clinical questions about the effects of anti-fibrinolytic treatment in patients with intracranial haemorrhage that cannot be answered using aggregate data.
Outcome measures in clinical trials of treatments for acute severe haemorrhage
Trials
Background: Acute severe haemorrhage is a common complication of injury, childbirth, surgery, gastrointestinal pathologies and other medical conditions. Bleeding is a major cause of death, but patients also die from non-bleeding causes, the frequency of which varies by the site of haemorrhage and between populations. Because patients can bleed to death within hours, established interventions inevitably take priority over randomisation into a trial. These circumstances raise challenges in selecting appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of haemostatic interventions. Main body: We use data from three large randomised controlled trials in acute severe haemorrhage (CRASH-2, WOMAN and HALT-IT) to explore the strengths and limitations of outcome measures commonly used in trials of haemostatic treatments, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, blood transfusion and surgical interventions. Many deaths following acute severe haemorrhage are due to patient comorbidities or complications rather than bleeding. If nonbleeding deaths are unaffected by a haemostatic intervention, even large trials will have low power to detect an effect on all-cause mortality. Due to the dilution from deaths unaffected or reduced by the trial treatment, all-cause mortality can also obscure important harmful effects. Additionally, because the relative contributions of different causes of death vary within and between patient populations, all-cause mortality is not generalisable. Different causes of death occur at different time intervals from bleeding onset, with bleeding deaths generally occurring early. Time-specific mortality can therefore be used as a proxy for cause in un-blinded trials where bias is a concern or in situations where cause of death cannot be assessed. Urgent treatment is critical, and so post-randomisation blood transfusion and surgery are often planned before or at the time of randomisation and therefore cannot be influenced by the trial treatment. Conclusions: All-cause mortality has low power, lacks generalisability and can obscure harmful effects. Cause-specific mortality, such as death due to bleeding or thrombosis, avoids these drawbacks. In certain scenarios, time-specific mortality can be used as a proxy for cause-specific mortality. Blood transfusion and surgical procedures have limited utility as outcome measures in trials of haemostatic treatments.
Fibrinolysis greater than 3% is the critical value for initiation of antifibrinolytic therapy
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 2013
BACKGROUND-The acute coagulopathy of trauma is present in up to one third of patients by the time of admission, and the recent CRASH-2 and MATTERs trials have focused worldwide attention on hyperfibrinolysis as a component of acute coagulopathy of trauma. Thromboelastography (TEG) is a powerful tool for analyzing fibrinolyis, but a clinically relevant threshold for defining hyperfibrinolysis has yet to be determined. Recent data suggest that the accepted normal upper bound of 7.5% for 30-minute fibrinolysis (LY30) by TEG is inappropriate in severe trauma, as the risk of death rises at much lower levels of clot lysis. We wished to determine the validity of this hypothesis and establish a threshold value to treat fibrinolysis, based on prediction of massive transfusion requirement and risk of mortality. METHODS-Patients with uncontrolled hemorrhage, meeting the massive transfusion protocol (MTP) criteria at admission (n = 73), represent the most severely injured trauma population at our center (median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 30; interquartile range, 20-38). Citrated kaolin TEG was performed at admission blood samples from this population, stratified by LY30, and evaluated for transfusion requirement and 28-day mortality. The same analysis was conducted on available field blood samples from all non-MTP trauma patients (n = 216) in the same period. These represent the general trauma population. RESULTS-Within the MTP-activating population, the cohort of patients with LY30 of 3% or greater was shown to be at much higher risk for requiring a massive transfusion (90.9% vs. 30.5%, p = 0.0008) and dying of hemorrhage (45.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.0014) than those with LY30 less than 3%. Similar trends were seen in the general trauma population.
Applying results from clinical trials: tranexamic acid in trauma patients
Journal of intensive care, 2014
This paper considers how results from clinical trials should be applied in the care of patients, using the results of the Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage (CRASH-2) trial of tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients as a case study. We explain why an understanding of the mechanisms of action of the trial treatment, and insight into the factors that might be relevant to this mechanism, is critical in order to properly apply (generalise) trial results and why it is not necessary that the trial population is representative of the population in which the medicine will be used. We explain why cause (mechanism)-specific mortality is more generalizable than all-cause mortality and why the risk ratio is the generalizable measure of the effect of the treatment. Overall, we argue that a biological insight into how the treatment works is more relevant when applying research results to patient care than the application of statistical reasoning.
Thrombosis Research, 2009
Background: Minimizing bleeding and transfusion is desirable given its cost, complexity and potential for adverse events. Concerns have been heightened by recent data demonstrating that bleeding events may predict worse outcomes and by warnings about the safety of erythropoietic stimulating agents. Prior small studies suggest that antifibrinolytic agents may reduce bleeding and transfusion need in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, no single study has been large enough to definitively determine if these agents are safe and effective. To address this issue we performed a systematic review of randomized trials describing the use of tranexamic acid, epsilon aminocaproic acid, or aprotinin administration in the perioperative setting. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane databases were searched for relevant trials. Two independent reviewers abstracted total blood loss, transfusion requirements, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates. Data were combined using the Mantel-Haenszel method and dichotomous data expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Patients receiving antifibrinolytic agents had reduced transfusion need (RR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.64; P b 0.00001), reduced blood loss and no increase in the risk of VTE (RR 0.95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.531). Conclusions: We conclude that antifibrinolytic agents may reduce bleeding and transfusion in patients undergoing THR or TKA who receive appropriate antithrombotic prophylaxis. There is a need for a large, adequately powered prospective study to carefully examine the safety and efficacy of these agents.