Viscoelastic hemostatic assay (VHAs) are whole blood point-of-care tests that have become an essential method for assaying hemostatic competence in liver transplantation, cardiac surgery, and most recently, trauma surgery involving hemorrhagic shock. It has taken more than three-quarters of a century of research and clinical application for this technology to become mainstream in these three clinical areas. Within the last decade, the cup and pin legacy devices, such as thromboelastography (TEG^® 5000) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM^® delta), have been supplanted not only by cartridge systems (TEG^® 6S and ROTEM^® sigma), but also by more portable point-of-care bedside testing iterations of these legacy devices (e.g., Sonoclot^®, Quantra^®, and ClotPro^®). Here, the legacy and new generation VHAs are compared on the basis of their unique hemostatic parameters that define contributions of coagulation factors, fibrinogen/fibrin, platelets, and clot lysis as related to the lifespan of a clot. In conclusion, we offer a brief discussion on the meteoric adoption of VHAs across the medical and surgical specialties to address COVID-19-associated coagulopathy.

This narrative review explores the pathophysiology, geographic variation, and historical developments underlying the selection of fixed ratio versus whole blood resuscitation for hemorrhaging trauma patients. We also detail a physiologically driven and goal-directed alternative to fixed ratio and whole blood, whereby viscoelastic testing guides the administration of blood components and factor concentrates to the severely bleeding trauma patient. The major studies of each resuscitation method are highlighted, and upcoming comparative trials are detailed.

A unique coagulopathy often manifests following traumatic brain injury, leading the clinician down a difficult decision path on appropriate prophylaxis and therapy. Conventional coagulation assays—such as prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio—have historically been utilized to assess hemostasis and guide treatment following traumatic brain injury. However, these plasma-based assays alone often lack the sensitivity to diagnose and adequately treat coagulopathy associated with traumatic brain injury. Here, we review the whole blood coagulation assays termed viscoelastic tests and their use in traumatic brain injury. Modified viscoelastic tests with platelet function assays have helped elucidate the underlying pathophysiology and guide clinical decisions in a goal-directed fashion. Platelet dysfunction appears to underlie most coagulopathies in this patient population, particularly at the adenosine diphosphate and/or arachidonic acid receptors. Future research will focus not only on the utility of viscoelastic tests in diagnosing coagulopathy in traumatic brain injury, but also on better defining the use of these tests as evidence-based and/or precision-based tools to improve patient outcomes.

Opportunities to improve emergency surgery outcomes exist through guided better practice and reduced variability. Few attempts have been made to define optimal care in emergency surgery, and few clinically derived key performance indicators (KPIs) have been published. A summit was therefore convened to look at resources for optimal care of emergency surgery. The aim of the Donegal Summit was to set a platform in place to develop guidelines and KPIs in emergency surgery. The project had multidisciplinary global involvement in producing consensus statements regarding emergency surgery care in key areas, and to assess feasibility of producing KPIs that could be used to monitor process and outcome of care in the future. Forty-four key opinion leaders in emergency surgery, across 7 disciplines from 17 countries, composed evidence-based position papers on 14 key areas of emergency surgery and 112 KPIs in 20 acute conditions or emergency systems. The summit was successful in achieving position papers and KPIs in emergency surgery. While position papers were limited by non-graded evidence and non-validated KPIs, the process set a foundation for the future advancement of emergency surgery.

An abstract is unavailable. This article is available as a PDF only.

The reduction in the blood supply following the 2019 coronavirus pandemic has been exacerbated by the increased use of balanced resuscitation with blood components including whole blood in urban trauma centers. This reduction of the blood supply has diminished the ability of blood banks to maintain a constant supply to meet the demands associated with periodic surges of urban trauma resuscitation. This scarcity has highlighted the need for increased vigilance through blood product stewardship, particularly among severely bleeding trauma patients (SBTPs). This stewardship can be enhanced by the identification of reliable clinical and laboratory parameters which accurately indicate when massive transfusion is futile. Consequently, there has been a recent attempt to develop scoring systems in the prehospital and emergency department settings which include clinical, laboratory, and physiologic parameters and blood products per hour transfused as predictors of futile resuscitation. Defining futility in SBTPs, however, remains unclear, and there is only nascent literature which defines those criteria which reliably predict futility in SBTPs. The purpose of this review is to provide a focused examination of the literature in order to define reliable parameters of futility in SBTPs. The knowledge of these reliable parameters of futility may help define a foundation for drawing conclusions which will provide a clear roadmap for traumatologists when confronted with SBTPs who are candidates for the declaration of futility. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature regarding the definition of futile resuscitation for patients with trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock, and we propose a concise roadmap for clinicians to help them use well-defined clinical, laboratory, and viscoelastic parameters which can define futility.