PROPPR finds resuscitation strategy had no effect on laparotomy outcomes

LAS VEGAS – Choice of damage control resuscitation – plasma-platelet-red blood cell ratio of either 1:1:1 or 1:1:2 – did not affect whether severely injured patients required an emergency laparotomy, nor did it affect time to laparotomy or survival following laparotomy, according to findings from the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial.

“We were unable to detect significant effects of damage control resuscitation on the frequency and time to emergency laparotomy, outcomes, disposition at 30 days, or main endpoint survival,” said Dr. Vicente J. Undurraga Perl of the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The lack of a difference between the treatment groups with respect to emergency laparotomy and 30-day survival may be a result of the low overall mortality of 23% and to the study being underpowered to detect a difference between the groups.

The PROPPR trial demonstrated that damage control resuscitation, defined as “a massive transfusion strategy targeting a balanced delivery of plasma-platelet-RBC in a ratio of 1:1:1,” allows earlier achievement of hemostasis in a greater number of severely injured patients than does a 1:1:2 ratio. A corresponding reduction in deaths because of exsanguination was observed in the study subjects, who were enrolled from 12 level-1 trauma centers in North America, where they presented with severe injuries.

Of 680 patients who had severe injuries and were predicted to require massive transfusions, 613 underwent a surgical procedure and 397 underwent a laparotomy. Of the latter, 346 were emergency laparotomies. Of those who received damage control resuscitation using the 1:1:1 ratio, 52% underwent emergency laparotomy (defined as laparotomy within 90 minutes of arrival at a trauma center). Of those who received the 1:1:2 ratio, 50% underwent emergency laparotomy. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant, Dr. Perl reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

The median time to laparotomy was 28 minutes in both groups, and the proportions of patients who survived to 3 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 30 days also were similar in the two groups. For example, 88% and 85% of those in the 1:1:1 and 1:1:2 groups, respectively, survived to 24 hours; 82% and 77%, respectively, survived to 30 days, he said.

There was no overall difference in mortality between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.78), nor was there a difference in survival by study site, he noted.

Dr. Perl reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Choice of damage control resuscitation – plasma-platelet-red blood cell ratio of either 1:1:1 or 1:1:2 – did not affect whether severely injured patients required an emergency laparotomy, nor did it affect time to laparotomy or survival following laparotomy, according to findings from the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial.

“We were unable to detect significant effects of damage control resuscitation on the frequency and time to emergency laparotomy, outcomes, disposition at 30 days, or main endpoint survival,” said Dr. Vicente J. Undurraga Perl of the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The lack of a difference between the treatment groups with respect to emergency laparotomy and 30-day survival may be a result of the low overall mortality of 23% and to the study being underpowered to detect a difference between the groups.

The PROPPR trial demonstrated that damage control resuscitation, defined as “a massive transfusion strategy targeting a balanced delivery of plasma-platelet-RBC in a ratio of 1:1:1,” allows earlier achievement of hemostasis in a greater number of severely injured patients than does a 1:1:2 ratio. A corresponding reduction in deaths because of exsanguination was observed in the study subjects, who were enrolled from 12 level-1 trauma centers in North America, where they presented with severe injuries.

Of 680 patients who had severe injuries and were predicted to require massive transfusions, 613 underwent a surgical procedure and 397 underwent a laparotomy. Of the latter, 346 were emergency laparotomies. Of those who received damage control resuscitation using the 1:1:1 ratio, 52% underwent emergency laparotomy (defined as laparotomy within 90 minutes of arrival at a trauma center). Of those who received the 1:1:2 ratio, 50% underwent emergency laparotomy. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant, Dr. Perl reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

The median time to laparotomy was 28 minutes in both groups, and the proportions of patients who survived to 3 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 30 days also were similar in the two groups. For example, 88% and 85% of those in the 1:1:1 and 1:1:2 groups, respectively, survived to 24 hours; 82% and 77%, respectively, survived to 30 days, he said.

There was no overall difference in mortality between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.78), nor was there a difference in survival by study site, he noted.

Dr. Perl reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Choice of damage control resuscitation – plasma-platelet-red blood cell ratio of either 1:1:1 or 1:1:2 – did not affect whether severely injured patients required an emergency laparotomy, nor did it affect time to laparotomy or survival following laparotomy, according to findings from the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial.

“We were unable to detect significant effects of damage control resuscitation on the frequency and time to emergency laparotomy, outcomes, disposition at 30 days, or main endpoint survival,” said Dr. Vicente J. Undurraga Perl of the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The lack of a difference between the treatment groups with respect to emergency laparotomy and 30-day survival may be a result of the low overall mortality of 23% and to the study being underpowered to detect a difference between the groups.

The PROPPR trial demonstrated that damage control resuscitation, defined as “a massive transfusion strategy targeting a balanced delivery of plasma-platelet-RBC in a ratio of 1:1:1,” allows earlier achievement of hemostasis in a greater number of severely injured patients than does a 1:1:2 ratio. A corresponding reduction in deaths because of exsanguination was observed in the study subjects, who were enrolled from 12 level-1 trauma centers in North America, where they presented with severe injuries.

Of 680 patients who had severe injuries and were predicted to require massive transfusions, 613 underwent a surgical procedure and 397 underwent a laparotomy. Of the latter, 346 were emergency laparotomies. Of those who received damage control resuscitation using the 1:1:1 ratio, 52% underwent emergency laparotomy (defined as laparotomy within 90 minutes of arrival at a trauma center). Of those who received the 1:1:2 ratio, 50% underwent emergency laparotomy. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant, Dr. Perl reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

The median time to laparotomy was 28 minutes in both groups, and the proportions of patients who survived to 3 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 30 days also were similar in the two groups. For example, 88% and 85% of those in the 1:1:1 and 1:1:2 groups, respectively, survived to 24 hours; 82% and 77%, respectively, survived to 30 days, he said.

There was no overall difference in mortality between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.78), nor was there a difference in survival by study site, he noted.

Dr. Perl reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]