Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Utility of viscoelastic hemostatic assay to guide hemostatic resuscitation in trauma patients: a systematic review

Study

Study design

Setting

Included criteria

VHA device

VHA/total sample size

Transfusion algorithm, VHA versus control group

Baksaas-Aasen [29]

Multi-center, randomized controlled trial

Seven major trauma centers in Europe

Adult trauma patients, presented with clinical signs of bleeding, activating the local MHP and if RBCs transfusion had been initiated

TEG 6S or ROTEM

201/396

TEG or ROTEM versus CCT

Cochrane [20]

Single-center, before-after study

A level I trauma center in the UK

Major hemorrhage protocol activation, with suspicion of significant active bleeding, and blood transfusion commenced

TEG 6S

175/301

Post-TEG versus pre-TEG (CCT-based)

Campbell  [21]

Single-center, before-after study

A trauma center in Southeast Queensland, Australia

Adult trauma patients (≥ 18 years or older), ISS ≥ 12, and received blood products

ROTEM

77/110

Post-ROTEM versus pre-ROTEM

Unruh [22]

Single-center, before-after study

A level I trauma center in Wichita, KS, USA

All trauma patients who underwent MTP activation

TEG 5000

47/67

Post-TEG versus pre-TEG (CCT-based)

Wang [23]

Single-center, retrospective study

A level I trauma center in Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Patients who sustained traumatic liver and/or spleen injuries and received any types of blood products within the first 24 h of hospital arrival

TEG

86/166

TEG versus non-TEG

Mohamed [24]

Single-center, before-after study

A level I trauma center in Flint, MI, USA

Aged 15 years or older with an ISS of ≥ 15, and transfused within the first 24 h of presentation

TEG

47/134

Post-TEG versus pre-TEG

Gonzalez [28]

Single-center, randomized controlled trial

A level I trauma center in Denver, USA

Injured patients at least 18 years of age that met criteria for MTP activation upon ED arrival

TEG 5000

56/111

TEG versus CCT

Yin [25]

Single-center, before-after study

The ED in Nanjing, China

Older than 18 years, abdominal abbreviated injury scale ≥ 2, and requirement of 2 or more units of RBCs transfusion within 24 h of ED admission

TEG 5000

29/60

Post-TEG versus pre-TEG

Tapia [26]

Single-center, before-after study

A level I trauma center in Houston, Texas, USA

Trauma patient patients receiving 6 units or more, and 10 units or more RBCs in the first 24 h, aged ≥ 15 years

TEG

165/289(≥ 6U RBCs); 98/163(≥ 10U RBCs)

TEG versus MTP

Kashuk [27] 

Single-center, before-after study

A level trauma center in Denver, Colorado, USA

Patients who received 6 or more units of blood within the first 6 h

TEG 5000

34/68

Post-TEG versus pre-TEG

  1. MHP major hemorrhage protocol; RBCs red blood cells; ISS injury severity score; MTP massive transfusion protocol; ED emergency department; VHA viscoelastic hemostatic assay; TEG thrombelastography; ROTEM rotational thromboelastometry; CCT conventional coagulation tests