Evidence Hub

Correction of Trauma-induced Coagulopathy by Goal-directed Therapy: A Secondary Analysis of the ITACTIC Trial

Charlotte Lindsay, Ross Davenport, K. Baksaas-Aasen, K. M. Kolstadbråten, P. A. Næss, Nicola Curry, M. Maegele, N. Juffermans et al.

Anesthesiology, 2024

133 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

Background Trauma hemorrhage induces a coagulopathy with a high associated mortality rate. The Implementing Treatment Algorithms for the Correction of Trauma Induced Coagulopathy (ITACTIC) randomized trial tested two goal-directed treatment algorithms for coagulation management: one guided by conventional coagulation tests and one by viscoelastic hemostatic assays (viscoelastic). The lack of a difference in 28-day mortality led the authors to hypothesize that coagulopathic patients received insufficient treatment to correct coagulopathy. Methods During ITACTIC, two sites were coenrolling patients into an ongoing prospective observational study, which included serial blood sampling at the same intervals as in ITACTIC. The subgroup in both studies had conventional and viscoelastic test results for each patient available for analysis. A goal-directed treatment was defined as one triggered by an ITACTIC algorithm. Coagulopathy was defined as rotational thromboelastometry EXTEM A5 less than 40 mm. The primary outcome was correction of coagulopathy by the 12th unit of erythrocyte transfusion during resuscitation. Results Full viscoelastic and conventional coagulation test results were available for 133 patients. Of these patients, 71% were coagulopathic on admission, and 16% developed a coagulopathy during resuscitation. ITACTIC viscoelastic hemostatic assay group patients were more likely to receive goal-directed treatment than the standard group (76% vs. 47%; odds ratio, 3.73;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 133 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free