TraumaNCT03068104
Unmet Need for Massive Transfusion in Indian Trauma Patients
An observational study of Trauma, run by Karolinska Institutet.
Trial summary
This study aims to estimate the difference between predicted and provided massive transfusion in adult trauma patients admitted to university hospitals in urban India. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 15 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Trauma
- How many people
- 16,047 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jan 2017to 31 Dec 2018
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 15 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Adult trauma patients
Who may be able to join
- Presented alive
- History of trauma
- ≥ 15 years old
Who cannot join
- Burn
- Missing data on outcome or covariates
About this study
Official title: What is the Difference Between Predicted Need for Massive Transfusion and Actual Transfusion in Adult Trauma Patients in an Urban Indian Setting?
This study aims to estimate the difference between predicted and provided massive transfusion in adult trauma patients admitted to university hospitals in urban India.
Read the detailed description
Background
Trauma fatalities account for 9 % of the world's deaths, superseding the number of deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of preventable death among trauma patients. Up to 5 % of trauma patients require massive transfusions (MT), defined as administration of ten or more units of packed red blood cells (PRBC) within 24 hours of injury.
India is an LMIC lacking structured trauma care systems and where blood products remain a scarce commodity. There is a sizeable gap in supply and demand as India lacks about four million units of blood per year according to World Health Organization estimates. The in-hospital mortality in an urban Indian trauma setting has been found to be twice that of high-income equivalents and inadequate resuscitation and bleeding control of hemorrhaging patients has been found to be the main cause of preventable deaths.
Considering the general lack of blood components in India it is reasonable to assume that there is an unmet need of blood transfusions in trauma patients as well. The extent of the potentially unmet need of MT constitutes a major gap of knowledge and also an important basis for resource allocation and development of MT protocols suited for local needs, hence our research question: what is the difference between predicted need for MT and actual transfusion in an urban Indian trauma setting?
Aim
To estimate the difference between predicted need for MT and provided MT in adult trauma patients in an urban Indian setting. The hypothesis is that there will be a substantial discrepancy between predicted need and provided MT, indicating an unmet need of blood transfusions.
Study design
A retrospective analysis of the Towards Improved Trauma Outcomes in India (TITCO) cohort will be conducted.
Setting
The TITCO dataset includes 16,047 patients enrolled between July 2013 and December 2015 from four public university hospitals, namely the King Edward Memorial Hospital and Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital in Mumbai, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center in New Delhi and the Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital in Kolkata. These hospitals are characterized by nominal patient fees and all operate trauma units.
An externally employed and trained data collector working eight-hour shifts in each facility gathered patient data in a prospective observational fashion, rotating between day, evening and night shifts. Data from patients admitted outside of these hours was retrieved retrospectively within days of admission. The patients were followed until discharge or death, whichever occurred first.
Source and method of participant selection
Participants were selected consecutively during the study period according to the aforementioned eligibility criteria, either via direct observation during the data collector's shift or through retrospective data retrieval from patient records.
Covariates
To estimate the proportion of patients predicted to need MT the Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC) score will be used. The rationale for using the ABC score in this context is that it is based on routinely recorded vital signs and examination results that are all available in TITCO, unlike other scores that also require laboratory results. Further, the intent is not to validate the score, but to use it as an informed basis for identifying patients with substantial bleeding. ABC is based on four dichotomous non-laboratory parameters that are readily available in the early assessment phase.
Penetrating mechanism (0=no, 1=yes)
Arrival Systolic Blood Pressure <= 90 mm Hg (0=no, 1=yes)
Arrival Heart Rate >= 120 bpm (0=no, 1=yes)
Positive focused assessment sonography for trauma (FAST) (0=no, 1=yes)
A score of two or more has been set to indicate need for MT. Age, sex, and mechanism of injury in addition to the variables included in the ABC score will be presented to characterize the study sample.
Data sources/measurement
Where FAST recording in the study sample is not reported as "positive" relevant free text terms will be used to find indications of free fluid in abdomen, pelvis or pericardium. Where FAST recording is missing relevant ICD-10 codes will be used for screening the free text variables reporting computer tomography (CT) and intraoperative findings.
The proportion of patients predicted to need MT (a) will be estimated by dividing the number of patients with an ABC score of two or more by the total number of patients in the study sample. The proportion of actual MT received (b) will then be calculated by dividing the number of patients who received ten or more units of PRBC with the total number of patients with complete clinical data.
Bias
The data collectors were externally trained and funded by project management. The data was obtained through direct observation and retrieval from patient records without interference in clinical work. All data collectors had at least a health science master's degree and were continuously trained and supervised by project management. The collected data is multi-institutional, likely reducing the effects of highly operator and setting dependent variables.
Injury severity bias due to missing data from severely injured patients is a recognized problem in trauma registries and to counteract this it is imperative to account for as many patients as possible using alternatives for the FAST positive variable that would indicate ongoing intra-abdominal, pericardial or pelvic hemorrhage. However, the approach of using surrogates for FAST may also yield misleading results due to overestimation. To estimate the magnitude of this source of bias a sensitivity analysis will be conducted.
In addition, the ABC score was originally developed and validated in a high-income setting with a likelihood of differing demography and patterns of injury mechanism, possibly yielding results not representable of true MT needs in our study population. However, in this case the ABC score will rather be used as a tool for the estimation of blood needs rather than as a prediction tool or aid in clinical decision-making.
Study size
Based on previous research it is assumed that 10% of patients will be predicted to need MT. In contrast, based on clinical experience from the study setting, it is assumed that a maximum of 5% received it. Assuming that 10 % (~ 1600 patients) will be predicted to need an MT and 5 % (~ 800 patients) received it then the sample size based on a two-sided paired comparison of proportions, i.e. two-sided McNemar's test, needed to detect this difference with 80% power is 369 patients, setting alpha to 5% and beta to 20%. In other words, because all complete observations in the cohort will be analyzed, it can safely be said that this study is powered to detect this difference at the 80% level.
Quantitative variables
When characterizing the study sample, all quantitative variables will be presented as continuous. In the calculation of the ABC score the quantitative variables arrival heart rate and arrival systolic blood pressure will be dichotomized as detailed in the covariate section above.
Statistical methods
All statistical analyses will be performed in R, a free open-source software for statistical computing and graphics. Qualitative sample characteristics will be presented using number and percentage whereas quantitative sample characteristics will be presented as median, values at the 25th and 75th percentile, as well as minimum and maximum values.
The main analysis is a complete case analysis where observations with missing covariate values will be excluded. Depending on the amount of missingness, multiple imputation using chained equations might be used to handle missing data. The main analysis will thereafter be conducted in two steps. First, the proportion of patients with an ABC score ≥ 2, i.e. patients with predicted need of MT will be calculated. Thereafter the proportion of patients who actually received MT (b) will be calculated based on transfusion data in the TITCO registry. The outcome is defined as the difference between the proportion of adult patients predicted to receive MT and the proportion of patients who did receive MT.
Sensitivity analyses
Based on clinical experience in this particular setting a sensitivity analysis will be conducted with a cutoff value of 4 units of PRBCs in 24 hours for the definition of MT. A sensitivity analysis will also be conducted by restricting the analysis to FAST positive patients where coding using CT or intraoperative findings was not used.
- Conditions
- Trauma
- Being tested
- No intervention
- Keywords
- Trauma, Haemorrhage, Massive transfusion, India
- Medical subject headings
- Wounds and Injuries, Hemorrhage
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
No interventionOther
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The difference between the proportions of adult patients predicted to receive MT and patients who did receive MT.
Measured: ≤ 24 hours within arrival
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Mar 2017
- Study startJan 2017
- Primary completion31 Dec 2018
- Study completion31 Dec 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for TraumaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Karolinska InstitutetThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 16,047 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Karolinska Institutet
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Tata Institute of Social Sciences
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Martin Gerdin, Karolinska Institutet
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03068104
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- ruut-seger-201702262039
- Status last verified
- Feb 2020
- First submitted
- 26 Feb 2017
- Last updated
- 20 Feb 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 Feb 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- What is the Difference Between Predicted Need for Massive Transfusion and Actual Transfusion in Adult Trauma Patients in an Urban Indian Setting?
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03068104
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ruut-seger-201702262039
- Conditions
- Trauma
- Keywords
- Trauma, Haemorrhage, Massive transfusion, India
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 16,047 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Karolinska InstitutetUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Tata Institute of Social Sciences
- Study start
- Jan 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Mar 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study aims to estimate the difference between predicted and provided massive transfusion in adult trauma patients admitted to university hospitals in urban India.
Detailed description
Background
Trauma fatalities account for 9 % of the world's deaths, superseding the number of deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of preventable death among trauma patients. Up to 5 % of trauma patients require massive transfusions (MT), defined as administration of ten or more units of packed red blood cells (PRBC) within 24 hours of injury.
India is an LMIC lacking structured trauma care systems and where blood products remain a scarce commodity. There is a sizeable gap in supply and demand as India lacks about four million units of blood per year according to World Health Organization estimates. The in-hospital mortality in an urban Indian trauma setting has been found to be twice that of high-income equivalents and inadequate resuscitation and bleeding control of hemorrhaging patients has been found to be the main cause of preventable deaths.
Considering the general lack of blood components in India it is reasonable to assume that there is an unmet need of blood transfusions in trauma patients as well. The extent of the potentially unmet need of MT constitutes a major gap of knowledge and also an important basis for resource allocation and development of MT protocols suited for local needs, hence our research question: what is the difference between predicted need for MT and actual transfusion in an urban Indian trauma setting?
Aim
To estimate the difference between predicted need for MT and provided MT in adult trauma patients in an urban Indian setting. The hypothesis is that there will be a substantial discrepancy between predicted need and provided MT, indicating an unmet need of blood transfusions.
Study design
A retrospective analysis of the Towards Improved Trauma Outcomes in India (TITCO) cohort will be conducted.
Setting
The TITCO dataset includes 16,047 patients enrolled between July 2013 and December 2015 from four public university hospitals, namely the King Edward Memorial Hospital and Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital in Mumbai, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Center in New Delhi and the Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital in Kolkata. These hospitals are characterized by nominal patient fees and all operate trauma units.
An externally employed and trained data collector working eight-hour shifts in each facility gathered patient data in a prospective observational fashion, rotating between day, evening and night shifts. Data from patients admitted outside of these hours was retrieved retrospectively within days of admission. The patients were followed until discharge or death, whichever occurred first.
Source and method of participant selection
Participants were selected consecutively during the study period according to the aforementioned eligibility criteria, either via direct observation during the data collector's shift or through retrospective data retrieval from patient records.
Covariates
To estimate the proportion of patients predicted to need MT the Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC) score will be used. The rationale for using the ABC score in this context is that it is based on routinely recorded vital signs and examination results that are all available in TITCO, unlike other scores that also require laboratory results. Further, the intent is not to validate the score, but to use it as an informed basis for identifying patients with substantial bleeding. ABC is based on four dichotomous non-laboratory parameters that are readily available in the early assessment phase.
Penetrating mechanism (0=no, 1=yes)
Arrival Systolic Blood Pressure <= 90 mm Hg (0=no, 1=yes)
Arrival Heart Rate >= 120 bpm (0=no, 1=yes)
Positive focused assessment sonography for trauma (FAST) (0=no, 1=yes)
A score of two or more has been set to indicate need for MT. Age, sex, and mechanism of injury in addition to the variables included in the ABC score will be presented to characterize the study sample.
Data sources/measurement
Where FAST recording in the study sample is not reported as "positive" relevant free text terms will be used to find indications of free fluid in abdomen, pelvis or pericardium. Where FAST recording is missing relevant ICD-10 codes will be used for screening the free text variables reporting computer tomography (CT) and intraoperative findings.
The proportion of patients predicted to need MT (a) will be estimated by dividing the number of patients with an ABC score of two or more by the total number of patients in the study sample. The proportion of actual MT received (b) will then be calculated by dividing the number of patients who received ten or more units of PRBC with the total number of patients with complete clinical data.
Bias
The data collectors were externally trained and funded by project management. The data was obtained through direct observation and retrieval from patient records without interference in clinical work. All data collectors had at least a health science master's degree and were continuously trained and supervised by project management. The collected data is multi-institutional, likely reducing the effects of highly operator and setting dependent variables.
Injury severity bias due to missing data from severely injured patients is a recognized problem in trauma registries and to counteract this it is imperative to account for as many patients as possible using alternatives for the FAST positive variable that would indicate ongoing intra-abdominal, pericardial or pelvic hemorrhage. However, the approach of using surrogates for FAST may also yield misleading results due to overestimation. To estimate the magnitude of this source of bias a sensitivity analysis will be conducted.
In addition, the ABC score was originally developed and validated in a high-income setting with a likelihood of differing demography and patterns of injury mechanism, possibly yielding results not representable of true MT needs in our study population. However, in this case the ABC score will rather be used as a tool for the estimation of blood needs rather than as a prediction tool or aid in clinical decision-making.
Study size
Based on previous research it is assumed that 10% of patients will be predicted to need MT. In contrast, based on clinical experience from the study setting, it is assumed that a maximum of 5% received it. Assuming that 10 % (~ 1600 patients) will be predicted to need an MT and 5 % (~ 800 patients) received it then the sample size based on a two-sided paired comparison of proportions, i.e. two-sided McNemar's test, needed to detect this difference with 80% power is 369 patients, setting alpha to 5% and beta to 20%. In other words, because all complete observations in the cohort will be analyzed, it can safely be said that this study is powered to detect this difference at the 80% level.
Quantitative variables
When characterizing the study sample, all quantitative variables will be presented as continuous. In the calculation of the ABC score the quantitative variables arrival heart rate and arrival systolic blood pressure will be dichotomized as detailed in the covariate section above.
Statistical methods
All statistical analyses will be performed in R, a free open-source software for statistical computing and graphics. Qualitative sample characteristics will be presented using number and percentage whereas quantitative sample characteristics will be presented as median, values at the 25th and 75th percentile, as well as minimum and maximum values.
The main analysis is a complete case analysis where observations with missing covariate values will be excluded. Depending on the amount of missingness, multiple imputation using chained equations might be used to handle missing data. The main analysis will thereafter be conducted in two steps. First, the proportion of patients with an ABC score ≥ 2, i.e. patients with predicted need of MT will be calculated. Thereafter the proportion of patients who actually received MT (b) will be calculated based on transfusion data in the TITCO registry. The outcome is defined as the difference between the proportion of adult patients predicted to receive MT and the proportion of patients who did receive MT.
Sensitivity analyses
Based on clinical experience in this particular setting a sensitivity analysis will be conducted with a cutoff value of 4 units of PRBCs in 24 hours for the definition of MT. A sensitivity analysis will also be conducted by restricting the analysis to FAST positive patients where coding using CT or intraoperative findings was not used.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 15 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Adult trauma patients
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Presented alive
- History of trauma
- ≥ 15 years old
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Burn
- Missing data on outcome or covariates
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| No intervention | Other | – |
Primary outcome
The difference between the proportions of adult patients predicted to receive MT and patients who did receive MT.
Time frame: ≤ 24 hours within arrival
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 Feb 2020.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Trauma
Recruiting
PAW-Hydrogel for Chronic Wound Healing
Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU), Pressure Ulcer (PU)
Recruiting
NightWare and Cardiovascular Health in Women With PTSD
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Cardiovascular Diseases
Not yet recruiting
Safety Study of Microlyte DualGuard
Wound Closure, Wound Care
Enrolling by invitation
Personalized Ventilator Settings for Patients on ECMO
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Recruiting
Effects of Cervicothoracic Mobilization in Patients With Supraspinatus Tendinitis
Rotator Cuff Tendonitis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Trauma, run by Karolinska Institutet.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Feb 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The difference between the proportions of adult patients predicted to receive MT and patients who did receive MT. (time frame: ≤ 24 hours within arrival). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Feb 2020.