Use of Haemostatic Devices for the Control of Junctional and Abdominal Traumatic Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review

Rhiannon Humphries, D. Naumann, Z. Ahmed
{"title":"Use of Haemostatic Devices for the Control of Junctional and Abdominal Traumatic Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review","authors":"Rhiannon Humphries, D. Naumann, Z. Ahmed","doi":"10.3390/traumacare2010003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Catastrophic haemorrhage accounts for up to 40% of global trauma related mortality and is the leading cause of preventable deaths on the battlefield. Controlling abdominal and junctional haemorrhage is challenging, especially in the pre-hospital setting or ‘under fire’, yet there is no haemostatic agent which satisfies the seven characteristics of an ‘ideal haemostat’. We conducted a systematic search of Embase, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of three types of haemostatic devices. Participants included any trauma patient in a pre-hospital setting, perfused human cadavers, or healthy human volunteer simulations. The haemostatic devices reviewed were REBOA, iTClampTM, and four junctional tourniquets: AAJT, CRoC, JETT, and SJT. The SJT had the best user survey performance of the junctional tourniquets, and the four junctional tourniquets had an overall efficacy of 26.6–100% and an application time of 10–203 s. The iTClampTM had an efficacy of 60–100% and an application time of 10–60 s. REBOA had an efficacy of 71–100% and an application time ranging from 5 min to >80 min. In civilian and military trauma patients the use of junctional tourniquets, iTClamp, or REBOA, mortality varied from 0–100%. All of these studies were deemed low to very low in quality, hence the reliability of data presented in each of the studies is called into question. We conclude that despite limited data for these devices, their use in the pre-hospital environment or ‘under fire’ is feasible with the correct training, portable imaging, and patient selection algorithms. However, higher quality studies are required to confirm the true efficacy of these devices.","PeriodicalId":75251,"journal":{"name":"Trauma care (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma care (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/traumacare2010003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Catastrophic haemorrhage accounts for up to 40% of global trauma related mortality and is the leading cause of preventable deaths on the battlefield. Controlling abdominal and junctional haemorrhage is challenging, especially in the pre-hospital setting or ‘under fire’, yet there is no haemostatic agent which satisfies the seven characteristics of an ‘ideal haemostat’. We conducted a systematic search of Embase, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of three types of haemostatic devices. Participants included any trauma patient in a pre-hospital setting, perfused human cadavers, or healthy human volunteer simulations. The haemostatic devices reviewed were REBOA, iTClampTM, and four junctional tourniquets: AAJT, CRoC, JETT, and SJT. The SJT had the best user survey performance of the junctional tourniquets, and the four junctional tourniquets had an overall efficacy of 26.6–100% and an application time of 10–203 s. The iTClampTM had an efficacy of 60–100% and an application time of 10–60 s. REBOA had an efficacy of 71–100% and an application time ranging from 5 min to >80 min. In civilian and military trauma patients the use of junctional tourniquets, iTClamp, or REBOA, mortality varied from 0–100%. All of these studies were deemed low to very low in quality, hence the reliability of data presented in each of the studies is called into question. We conclude that despite limited data for these devices, their use in the pre-hospital environment or ‘under fire’ is feasible with the correct training, portable imaging, and patient selection algorithms. However, higher quality studies are required to confirm the true efficacy of these devices.
使用止血装置控制结膜和腹部外伤性出血:系统回顾
灾难性出血占全球创伤相关死亡率的40%,是战场上可预防死亡的主要原因。控制腹部和交界处出血具有挑战性,尤其是在院前或“火力全开”的情况下,但目前还没有满足“理想止血器”七个特征的止血剂。我们对Embase、Medline、护理和相关健康文献累积指数(CINAHL)和Web of Science进行了系统检索,以评估三种类型止血装置的可行性和疗效。参与者包括院前环境中的任何创伤患者、灌注的人体尸体或健康的志愿者模拟。所审查的止血装置包括REBOA、iTClampTM和四种交界止血带:AAJT、CRoC、JETT和SJT。SJT具有最好的交界止血带用户调查性能,四种交界止血血带的总体疗效为26.6–100%,应用时间为10–203 s。iTClampTM的疗效为60–100%,使用时间为10-60 s。REBOA的疗效为71–100%,适用时间为5分钟至>80分钟。在使用交界止血带、iTClamp或REBOA的平民和军事创伤患者中,死亡率在0-100%之间。所有这些研究都被认为质量低到非常低,因此每项研究中提供的数据的可靠性都受到质疑。我们得出的结论是,尽管这些设备的数据有限,但通过正确的训练、便携式成像和患者选择算法,它们在院前环境或“炮火下”中的使用是可行的。然而,需要更高质量的研究来证实这些设备的真正功效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信