To TEG, or Not to TEG: That Is the Question.
H. Alam
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001756
IF: 13.787
2016-06-01
Annals of Surgery
Abstract:D espite numerous advances in trauma care, injuries are the leading cause of death in Americans <46 years age. Acute blood loss and its adverse consequences remain the main etiology of ‘‘preventable’’ deaths in these patients. As most of the deaths due to bleeding are early, prompt hemorrhage control, along with balanced resuscitation, remains the cornerstone of acute trauma care. Development of trauma-associated coagulopathy in the severely injured patients is often a major barrier to achieving effective hemostasis. The normal coagulation system depends on a delicate balance between clot formation and breakdown. Injuries typically tilt the balance in favor of clot formation at the site of injuries to stop the bleeding. However, major tissue damage, excessive blood loss, prolonged tissue hypoperfusion, and traumatic brain injury with disruption of the blood-brain barrier have all been shown to upset the normal coagulation homeostasis, resulting in development of coagulopathy. This can manifest as abnormal clot formation and/or excessive or rapid clot breakdown (fibrinolysis). Unless treated promptly, this coagulopathy leads to further bleeding. This vicious cycle can result in the development of the ‘‘lethal triad’’ of coagulopathy, acidosis, and hypothermia, which is associated with an extremely high mortality. An analysis of the traumaassociated coagulopathy suggests that it is a complicated process with numerous phenotypes. For example, depletion coagulopathy results in abnormalities of traditional coagulation parameters (international normalized ratio, partial thromboplastin time) and predicts mortality, whereas fibrinolytic coagulopathy predicts infection, end-organ failure, and mortality, without a detectable difference in international normalized ratio or partial thromboplastin time. There is considerable controversy about the most effective strategies for treating various types of coagulopathy, but early delivery of blood components (plasma, platelets, and packed red blood cells) in a high ratio has recently gained favor based upon data from the battlefield as well as large civilian trials. In addition, studies have shown that early administration of antifibrinolytic agents, and cryoprecipitate, can further improve the outcomes in severely injured patients. Determining how, when, and in what doses to deliver all these products remain a challenge. Also, excessive and inappropriate delivery of these agents can be potentially harmful. Most trauma centers have developed Massive Transfusion Protocols (MTPs) to address these issues and to optimize the processes of care. However, there is considerable variability from center to center in the specifics of the MTPs. There is also no real consensus about how to adjust the doses of the different components (eg, red cells, clotting factors, plasma, platelets, antifibrinolytics) based upon the results of clotting studies that measure the various aspects of the hemostatic system. The conventional clotting studies are far from ideal, which has generated an interest in using viscoelastic tests to guide the therapy. These assays, such as thromboelastography (TEG), measure the entire life span of clot formation and lysis in real time, and can be performed as point-of-care tests. However, it remains unknown whether TEG-directed MTPs are actually superior to protocols that rely upon the conventional coagulation studies. This study by Gonzales et al is a very timely effort from a group that has been a leader in this field. Using a prospective randomized trial, they have shown that a massive transfusion protocol directed by TEG resulted in a survival benefit compared with guidance based on conventional coagulation assays. This survival benefit resulted from less hemorrhagic deaths and less early deaths. Interestingly, an MTP based on conventional tests led to a higher transfusion of plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate compared to TEG guidance. But, more blood product administration did not create a more robust hemostatic environment. Although the survival benefits were in the early (first 6 h) period, the survivors in the TEG-guided group had more ICU-free and ventilator-free days. In short, TEG-directed approach delivered less blood products while achieving better outcomes. This, clearly, is what we would like to see. But we must also look critically at the study protocol to determine whether the results can be generalized to a larger trauma population. Overall, this is a very well done study, in a very difficult patient population, that provides fairly compelling data in favor of using TEG to guide the early delivery of blood products. However, I am not entirely certain that their results can be easily reproduced in centers that do not routinely use the TEG