Jansen, Jan O.

Background ‘Exception from informed consent’ research requires community consultation to ensure that the views of the local population have been considered. Using market research companies to distribute surveys across local populations is attractive because it ensures adequate response rates. It is not known whether individuals who respond to surveys are typical of the targeted communities. The purpose of this study is to compare the demographics of the survey respondents with that of the general population in the same area. Methods This is an analysis of data collected as part of the ‘Trauma Resuscitation with Group O Whole Blood or Products’ (TROOP) trial. The surveys used a commercial market research service to reach the communities of interest and consisted of 18 questions designed to evaluate respondents’ willingness to be enrolled in the TROOP trial and the demographics of survey respondents. Results Catchment populations varied from 0.5 to 9.4 million residents, with a total of 33.5 million. The racial and ethnic composition of the population (and the survey respondents, in brackets) was 44.8% (57.0%) white, 25.7% (13.4%) Hispanic, 12.7% (19.4%) black, 8.0% (2.5%) multiracial, 7.9% (4.4%) Asian, 0.7% (0.9%) Native American, and 0.2% (0.5%) Islanders. Of the male population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 12.2% (15.3%) were aged 18years to 24 years, 20.5% (22.3%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 18.1% (24.9%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 16.3% (18.5%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 15.5% (14.8%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 17.4% (4.3%) aged 65 years and over. Of the female population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 11.0% (18.5%) were aged 18 years to 24 years, 18.4% (22.6%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 16.4% (23.5%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 15.0% (17.3%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 18.5% (14.1%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 20.6% (3.9%) aged 65 years and over. Conclusions For this trial, using a market research company to distribute community surveys resulted in respondents that are broadly representative of the geographic areas where the trial will be conducted, except for individuals over the age of 65 years and older. This finding provides reassurance to investigators and institutional review boards that the views expressed by respondents are representative of the population where the trial will be conducted. Level of evidence III

Background The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Importance Bleeding is the most common cause of preventable death after trauma. Objective To determine the effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) when used in the emergency department along with standard care vs standard care alone on mortality in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants Pragmatic, bayesian, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 major trauma centers in the UK. Patients aged 16 years or older with exsanguinating hemorrhage were enrolled between October 2017 and March 2022 and followed up for 90 days. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 allocation) to a strategy that included REBOA and standard care (n = 46) or standard care alone (n = 44). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Ten secondary outcomes included mortality at 6 months, while in the hospital, and within 24 hours, 6 hours, or 3 hours; the need for definitive hemorrhage control procedures; time to commencement of definitive hemorrhage control procedures; complications; length of stay; blood product use; and cause of death. Results Of the 90 patients (median age, 41 years [IQR, 31-59 years]; 62 [69%] were male; and the median Injury Severity Score was 41 [IQR, 29-50]) randomized, 89 were included in the primary outcome analysis because 1 patient in the standard care alone group declined to provide consent for continued participation and data collection 4 days after enrollment. At 90 days, 25 of 46 patients (54%) had experienced all-cause mortality in the REBOA and standard care group vs 18 of 43 patients (42%) in the standard care alone group (odds ratio [OR], 1.58 [95% credible interval, 0.72-3.52]; posterior probability of an OR >1 [indicating increased odds of death with REBOA], 86.9%). Among the 10 secondary outcomes, the ORs for mortality and the posterior probabilities of an OR greater than 1 for 6-month, in-hospital, and 24-, 6-, or 3-hour mortality were all increased in the REBOA and standard care group, and the ORs were increased with earlier mortality end points. There were more deaths due to bleeding in the REBOA and standard care group (8 of 25 patients [32%]) than in standard care alone group (3 of 18 patients [17%]), and most occurred within 24 hours. Conclusions and Relevance In trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage, a strategy of REBOA and standard care in the emergency department does not reduce, and may increase, mortality compared with standard care alone. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16184981

Abstract Background The current global pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in the blood supply network. Given the recent shortages, there must be a civilian plan for massively bleeding patients when there are no blood products on the shelf. Recognizing that the time to death in bleeding patients is less than 2 h, timely resupply from unaffected locations is not possible. One solution is to transfuse emergency untested whole blood (EUWB), similar to the extensive military experience fine‐tuned over the last 19 years. While this concept is anathema in current civilian transfusion practice, it seems prudent to have a vetted plan in place. Methods and Materials During the early stages of the 2020 global pandemic, a multidisciplinary and international group of clinicians with broad experience in transfusion medicine communicated routinely. The result is a planning document that provides both background information and a high‐level guide on how to emergently deliver EUWB for patients who would otherwise die of hemorrhage. Results and Conclusions Similar plans have been utilized in remote locations, both on the battlefield and in civilian practice. The proposed recommendations are designed to provide high‐level guidance for experienced blood bankers, transfusion experts, clinicians, and health authorities. Like with all emergency preparedness, it is always better to have a well‐thought‐out and trained plan in place, rather than trying to develop a hasty plan in the midst of a disaster. We need to prevent the potential for empty shelves and bleeding patients dying for lack of blood.