Many preclinical studies in critical care medicine and related disciplines rely on hypothesis-driven research in mice. The underlying premise posits that mice sufficiently emulate numerous pathophysiologic alterations produced by trauma/sepsis and can serve as an experimental platform for answering clinically relevant questions. Recently, the lay press severely criticized the translational relevance of mouse models in critical care medicine. A series of provocative editorials were elicited by a highly publicized research report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS; February 2013), which identified an unrecognized gene expression profile mismatch between human and murine leukocytes following burn/trauma/endotoxemia. Based on their data, the authors concluded that mouse models of trauma/inflammation are unsuitable for studying corresponding human conditions. We believe this conclusion was not justified. In conjunction with resulting negative commentary in the popular press, it can seriously jeopardize future basic research in critical care medicine. We will address some limitations of that PNAS report to provide a framework for discussing its conclusions and attempt to present a balanced summary of strengths/weaknesses of use of mouse models. While many investigators agree that animal research is a central component for improved patient outcomes, it is important to acknowledge known limitations in clinical translation from mouse to man. The scientific community is responsible to discuss valid limitations without overinterpretation. Hopefully, a balanced view of the strengths/weaknesses of using animals for trauma/endotoxemia/critical care research will not result in hasty discount of the clear need for using animals to advance treatment of critically ill patients.

Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is often accompanied by coagulopathy and an increased risk of bleeding. To identify and successfully treat bleeding disorders associated with sTBI, rapid assessment of coagulation status is crucial. This retrospective study was designed to assess the potential role of whole-blood thromboelastometry (ROTEM ^® , Tem International, Munich, Germany) in patients with isolated sTBI (abbreviated injury scale [AIS] _head ≥3 and AIS _extracranial <3). Blood samples were obtained immediately following admission to the emergency room of the Trauma Centre Salzburg in Austria. ROTEM analysis (EXTEM, INTEM, and FIBTEM tests) and standard laboratory coagulation tests (prothrombin time index [PTI, percentage of normal prothrombin time], activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], fibrinogen concentration, and platelet count) were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Out of 88 patients with sTBI enrolled in the study, 66 survived and 22 died. PTI, fibrinogen, and platelet count were significantly higher in survivors ( p <0.005). Accordingly, aPTT was shorter in this group ( p <0.0001). ROTEM analysis revealed shorter clotting times in extrinsically activated thromboelastometric test (EXTEM) and intrinsically activated thromboelastometric test (INTEM) ( p <0.001), shorter clot formation times in EXTEM and INTEM ( p <0.0001), and higher maximum clot firmness in EXTEM, INTEM, and FIBTEM ( p <0.01) in survivors compared with non-survivors. Logistic regression analysis revealed extrinsically activated thromboelastometric test with cytochalasin D (FIBTEM) MCF and aPTT to have the best predictive value for mortality. According to the degree of coagulopathy, non-survivors received more RBC ( p =0.016), fibrinogen concentrate ( p =0.01), and prothrombin complex concentrate ( p <0.001) within 24 h of arrival in the emergency room. ROTEM testing appeared to offer an early signal of severe life-threatening sTBI. Further studies are warranted to confirm these results and to investigate the role of ROTEM in guiding coagulation therapy.