Introduction
Traumatic injury is a leading cause of death in the USA with detrimental societal and public health consequences.1 The resuscitation of patients who suffer traumatic injury continues to evolve and focuses on the prevention of coagulopathy through minimization of crystalloid infusion and early blood component transfusion.2–6 Despite the beneficial effects of these resuscitation advances, the rate of mortality continues to be high within the first hours of arrival to a trauma center and highlights the importance of interventions initiated early in the prehospital setting.7–12 The multicenter, randomized Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial randomized severely injured patients transported to a trauma center by helicopter emergency services to prehospital thawed plasma administration or standard-care.13 The administration of prehospital thawed plasma was safe, lowered 30-day mortality, and has been shown to potentially moderate the immune dysfunction and endotheliopathy of trauma.7 13
Although the benefits of prehospital thawed plasma administration in severely injured patients have been demonstrated, this intervention is potentially resource intensive due to the need of providing it in an uncross-matched fashion and the short shelf-life of 5 days.14–16 This time window has the potential to result in significant plasma wastage and high financial costs when implemented in the prehospital arena.14 Further, animal studies have demonstrated that thawed plasma processing and the duration of time thawed (age of thawed plasma) can alter endothelial permeability, vascular stability, coagulation proteins, and microparticles necessary for immune and inflammatory regulation.17–19 However, the relationship between the age of thawed plasma and both associated clinical outcome and biomarker expression differences following injury has not been adequately characterized. The overall objective of the current secondary analysis was to determine if the age of thawed plasma was associated with outcome and biomarker expression differences using an existing study cohort. We hypothesized that the outcome benefits and biomarker expression would not be affected by the age of thawed plasma.
Methods
We performed a secondary analysis using data and biomarker measurements derived from the PAMPer trial.13 20 As previously described, the PAMPer trial enrolled patients transported via helicopter emergency services at risk of hemorrhagic shock. Randomization occurred at the level of the helicopter emergency services base, in 1-month blocks, to either standard of care resuscitation or 2 U of either group AB or group A with low anti-B titer (<1:100) thawed plasma. The trial protocol mandated that both units of plasma were infused to completion, even if this required infusion to continue after arrival at the trauma center. In accordance with the American Association of Blood Banks guidelines, all thawed plasma had a 5-day period of validity.14–16 The temperature of the thawed units were monitored in blood bank–approved refrigerators at the helicopter emergency services bases and with adhesive blood temperature monitoring labels on the units in coolers when in flight.14 Any and all plasma units used by helicopter emergency services teams were replaced and unused units were exchanged prior to expiration dates. For plasma unit pairs that did not expire on the same day (n=22), we assigned the plasma pair was assigned the longer thawed duration.
Inclusion criteria for PAMPer involved patients transported from the scene of trauma or referring facilities by participating helicopter emergency services to a PAMPer network trauma center at risk of hemorrhagic shock. Patient-specific parameters included severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure, <70 mm Hg) or hypotension (systolic blood pressure, 70–90 mm Hg) and tachycardia (heart rate >108 beats per minute) prior to arrival to the trauma center. Exclusion criteria included known pregnancy, prisoner status, penetrating injury to the head, asystole or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (>5 min), known objection to blood products.
In this secondary analysis, we included patients enrolled in PAMPer analyzed for primary outcome per the modified intention-to-treat protocol. Clinical outcomes were compared across three groups: (1) standard-care group; (2) plasma below median time thawed (0–1 days, YOUNG); (3) plasma equal to or above median time thawed (2–5 days, OLD). In sensitivity analysis, we also compared clinical outcomes of plasma group extremes, categorized as plasma above the median age (3–5 days, EXTREME OLD). For exploratory biomarker analysis, we excluded patients who were not allocated to the plasma group and who were unable to be sampled due to clinical care logistics of caring for the severely injured. We also performed a subgroup analysis in patients with the highest quartile of injury severity (Injury Severity Score >30) which has been characterized in prior PAMPer secondary analyses.7
Blood samples were collected, when feasible, from PAMPer trial patients on admission (TIME 0 (T0)) and at 24 (T24) hours. Twenty-one inflammatory mediators measured included interleukin (IL)−1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, IL-9, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-7E (ie, IL-25), IL-21, IL-22, IL-23, IL-27, IL-33, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)−1, INF-gamma (MIG), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and tumor necrosing factor (TNF)–α. Seven cell damage and death markers included histone-complexed DNA (hcDNA), human S100 calcium-binding protein A10 (S100A10), soluble urokinase receptor (suPAR), syndecan-1, thrombomodulin (TM), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and adipokine. Syndecan-1, TM, and VEGF have a hypothesized association to trauma-related damage of the endothelial cell’s glycocalyx, endothelium, and tight junction, respectively.21 22 Adipokine has a hypothesized association with restoration of endothelial cell function. Assays for inflammatory, damage, and those specific to endothelial cells were previously reported.7 Units for all IL, TNF-α, MCP-1, MIG, and GM-CSF are in picograms per milliliter, except IL-23, which is in nanograms per milliliter. All cell damage and death marker units are in nanograms per milliliter, except VEGF which is in picograms per milliliter, and hcDNA are reported as relative units.
To understand the characteristics of patients based on the treatment groups, we used descriptive statistics to compare patient demographics and injuries, prehospital and transport, and hospital admission patient factors including laboratory values. We evaluated differences in 30-day survival between treatment groups with Kaplan-Meier curves and associated log-rank testing for overall statistical significance. We then generated unadjusted HRs and associated 95% CI to compare the differences between specific treatment groups (standard-care vs YOUNG; standard-care vs OLD; YOUNG vs OLD) in addition to sensitivity analysis groups (YOUNG vs EXTREME OLD).
All multivariable linear regression analyses adjusted for Injury Severity Score, prehospital systolic blood pressure <70 mm Hg, Glasgow Coma Score, and resuscitation volumes (ie, plasma, blood, and crystalloid), and international ratio (INR) on hospital arrival with a robust variance estimator and were subject to appropriate testing. We calculated the linear prediction from the fitted models for each biomarker for each patient. In the subgroup, predicted biomarkers were presented as mean and corresponding SD values for each age of plasma group.
We expressed continuous variables as mean (SD) or median (IQR) and categorical variables as frequencies (percent). Differences were tested with Student’s t-tests or Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 with a p value <0.05 considered statistically significant on two-sided testing. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. All data were analyzed with Stata V.15.1 (StataCorp). Patient enrollment, informed consent, and data collection were in compliance with the PAMPer trial protocol and regulatory oversite as registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01818427). This study was approved under an Emergency Exception From Informed Consent protocol from the Human Research Protection Office of the US Army Medical Research and Material Command and by the appropriate institutional review boards.13 The use of these data in secondary analysis was reviewed by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (STUDY20070145).