Severe traumatic injury continues to present challenges to healthcare systems around the world, and post-traumatic bleeding remains a leading cause of potentially preventable death among injured patients. Now in its fifth edition, this document aims to provide guidance on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles described here to individual institutional circumstances and resources. The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004, and the current author group included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group applied a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were re-examined and revised based on scientific evidence that has emerged since the previous edition and observed shifts in clinical practice. New recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of post-traumatic coagulopathy have supported improved management strategies, including evidence that early, individualised goal-directed treatment improves the outcome of severely injured patients. The overall organisation of the current guideline has been designed to reflect the clinical decision-making process along the patient pathway in an approximate temporal sequence. Recommendations are grouped behind the rationale for key decision points, which are patient- or problem-oriented rather than related to specific treatment modalities. While these recommendations provide guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of major bleeding and coagulopathy, emerging evidence supports the author group’s belief that the greatest outcome improvement can be achieved through education and the establishment of and adherence to local clinical management algorithms. A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. If incorporated into local practice, these clinical practice guidelines have the potential to ensure a uniform standard of care across Europe and beyond and better outcomes for the severely bleeding trauma patient.

Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution. The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013. The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome. A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.

Introduction: Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient. When these recommendations are implemented patient outcomes may be improved. Methods: The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document represents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007 and updated in 2010. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature. Results: Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on the appropriate use of vasopressors and inotropic agents, and reflect an awareness of the growing number of patients in the population at large treated with antiplatelet agents and/or oral anticoagulants. The current guideline also includes recommendations and a discussion of thromboprophylactic strategies for all patients following traumatic injury. The most significant addition is a new section that discusses the need for every institution to develop, implement and adhere to an evidence-based clinical protocol to manage traumatically injured patients. The remaining recommendations have been re-evaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies. Conclusions: A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to trauma care and mechanisms with which to ensure that established protocols are consistently implemented will ensure a uniform and high standard of care across Europe and beyond.http://ccforum.com/content/17/4/442

Introduction: Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient, which when implemented may improve patient outcomes. Methods: The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document presents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature. Results: Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on coagulation support and monitoring and the appropriate use of local haemostatic measures, tourniquets, calcium and desmopressin in the bleeding trauma patient. The remaining recommendations have been reevaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies. Conclusions: This guideline provides an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to the management of critically injured bleeding trauma patients.

Introduction: Isolated vital signs (for example, heart rate or systolic blood pressure) have been shown unreliable in the assessment of hypovolemic shock. In contrast, the Shock Index (SI), defined by the ratio of heart rate to systolic blood pressure, has been advocated to better risk-stratify patients for increased transfusion requirements and early mortality. Recently, our group has developed a novel and clinical reliable classification of hypovolemic shock based upon four classes of worsening base deficit (BD). The objective of this study was to correlate this classification to corresponding strata of SI for the rapid assessment of trauma patients in the absence of laboratory parameters. Methods: Between 2002 and 2011, data for 21,853 adult trauma patients were retrieved from the TraumaRegister DGU® database and divided into four strata of worsening SI at emergency department arrival (group I, SI <0.6; group II, SI ≥0.6 to <1.0; group III, SI ≥1.0 to <1.4; and group IV, SI ≥1.4) and were assessed for demographics, injury characteristics, transfusion requirements, fluid resuscitation and outcomes. The four strata of worsening SI were compared with our recently suggested BD-based classification of hypovolemic shock. Results: Worsening of SI was associated with increasing injury severity scores from 19.3 (± 12) in group I to 37.3 (± 16.8) in group IV, while mortality increased from 10.9% to 39.8%. Increments in SI paralleled increasing fluid resuscitation, vasopressor use and decreasing hemoglobin, platelet counts and Quick’s values. The number of blood units transfused increased from 1.0 (± 4.8) in group I to 21.4 (± 26.2) in group IV patients. Of patients, 31% in group III and 57% in group IV required ≥10 blood units until ICU admission. The four strata of SI discriminated transfusion requirements and massive transfusion rates equally with our recently introduced BD-based classification of hypovolemic shock. Conclusion: SI upon emergency department arrival may be considered a clinical indicator of hypovolemic shock in respect to transfusion requirements, hemostatic resuscitation and mortality. The four SI groups have been shown to equal our recently suggested BD-based classification. In daily clinical practice, SI may be used to assess the presence of hypovolemic shock if point-of-care testing technology is not available.

Introduction: The TraumaRegister DGU™ (TR-DGU) has used the Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) score for outcome adjustment since 2003. In recent years, however, the observed mortality rate has fallen to about 2% below the prognosis, and it was felt that further prognostic factors, like pupil size and reaction, should be included as well. Finally, an increasing number of cases did not receive a RISC prognosis due to the missing values. Therefore, there was a need for an updated model for risk of death prediction in severely injured patients to be developed and validated using the most recent data. Methods: The TR-DGU has been collecting data from severely injured patients since 1993. All injuries are coded according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS, version 2008). Severely injured patients from Europe (ISS ≥4) documented between 2010 and 2011 were selected for developing the new score (n = 30,866), and 21,918 patients from 2012 were used for validation. Age and injury codes were required, and transferred patients were excluded. Logistic regression analysis was applied with hospital mortality as the dependent variable. Results were evaluated in terms of discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC), precision (observed versus predicted mortality), and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic). Results: The mean age of the development population was 47.3 years; 71.6% were males, and the average ISS was 19.3 points. Hospital mortality rate was 11.5% in this group. The new RISC II model consists of the following predictors: worst and second-worst injury (AIS severity level), head injury, age, sex, pupil reactivity and size, pre-injury health status, blood pressure, acidosis (base deficit), coagulation, haemoglobin, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Missing values are included as a separate category for every variable. In the development and the validation dataset, the new RISC II outperformed the original RISC score, for example AUC in the development dataset 0.953 versus 0.939. Conclusions: The updated RISC II prognostic score has several advantages over the previous RISC model. Discrimination, precision and calibration are improved, and patients with partial missing values could now be included. Results were confirmed in a validation dataset.