Viscoelastic Tests (VET) Versus Conventional Coagulation Tests (CCT) for Management of Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy

NCT ID: NCT06820879

Last Updated: 2025-07-11

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

NOT_YET_RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

316 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2025-10-01

Study Completion Date

2027-06-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Traumatic coagulopathy is a complex, multifactorial event that occurs in 20-30% of patients on admission. It increases mortality, and its treatment is one of the main priorities in the early management of severely injured patients. Diagnosis of coagulopathy has traditionally been based on conventional coagulation tests (CCTs), which provide an assessment of patients' coagulation in over 60 minutes. Over the past fifteen years, viscoelastic tests (VETs) have been proposed, providing a more rapid result (≤ 10 min) and can guide the administration of labile blood products (LBP). Various studies, mainly retrospective, have shown that the use of VETs is associated with a significant reduction in the use of LBP and the incidence of massive transfusions (MT).

For example, it has been showed that the use of VETs was accompanied by a reduction in the administration of LBP and more particularly of RBC (Red blood cell concentrate) (4.8 units vs. 1.9 units). The investigators obtained the same result on a larger number of patients, with a further reduction in the administration of other LBP and in the incidence of MT (33% vs. 8%, p\<0.01).

However, the main limitation of these 2 studies is that the results may not have been due solely to the use of ROTEM, but rather to a care package combining the use of ROTEM with the administration of tranexamic acid and the implementation of Damage Control Surgery techniques.

To avoid this methodological criticism, we recently compared 2 contemporary French cohorts (2012-2019), in which patients had similar management of traumatic injuries, with the exception of the type of coagulation tests: CCT vs. VET. The use of VET s was associated with an increase in the number of patients alive at 24h without MT (76% vs. 55%, p\<0.001), but also with a sharp reduction in the administration of all LBPs.

This composite criterion associating the occurrence of a MT with survival at 24 hours after hospital admission was the primary endpoint of the randomized iTACTIC study. iTACTICS was published in 2021, and aimed to compare in severely injured patients 2 strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of coagulopathies, based on CCT in one arm and VET in the other. In this work, the use of VET was not associated with an improvement in the proportion of patients alive at 24 hours without MT (64% vs. 67%, OR 1.15, CI95%: 0.8-1.7), nor with any of the other criteria studied. The main limitation of this study is that less than a third of the patients included had a coagulopathy on admission. The probability of receiving LBP was therefore low. In the subgroup of the most severe patients, an improvement in the primary endpoint was observed for patients randomized to the VET group. The small sample size and subgroup analysis, however, limited the significance of this result.

All these elements suggest that it is necessary :

* to use a composite endpoint rather than a single endpoint (mortality) for the evaluation of VET-based strategies, combining early mortality with the occurrence of a transfusion event.
* conduct a randomized trial comparing the use of VETs with that of CCTs in trauma patients with a high probability of coagulopathy on admission to hospital.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Trauma Coagulopathy

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Conventional arm: conventional coagulation tests.

In this arm, patients will have a detection and a correction of the TIC based on conventional coagulation assays. The threshold used to initiate a correction, in case of ongoing bleeding, will be set at fibrinogen concentration ≤ 1.5 gr/L, PTratio \>1.5 or platelets \< 50 G.L-1 (\< 100 G.L-1 in case of severe brain injury).

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Viscoelastic arm: Viscoelastic Tests

The detection and correction of TIC will be based on viscoelastic assay using values of clotting time (CT EXTEM), clot amplitude at 5 minutes (A5 FIBTEM and A5 EXTEM) and maximum lysis (ML). The algorithm for the study has been recently published and is based on thresholds for EXTEM (CT, A5 and ML), FIBTEM (A5). The algorithmic correction by fibrinogen concentrates and FFP is initiated using different cutoffs and parameters than in control arm, but the quantity of fibrinogen concentrates and FFP transfused will be similar in both arms.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Viscoelastic Tests (ROTEM)

Intervention Type DEVICE

Viscoelastic Tests (2-6 tests for the study over the first 24 hours)

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Viscoelastic Tests (ROTEM)

Viscoelastic Tests (2-6 tests for the study over the first 24 hours)

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Age 18 years or older
* Blunt or penetrating injury
* Less than 3 hours after a trauma AND less than 1 hour after trauma room admission
* One of the following criteria:

* Severe trauma in shock (shock index \> 0.9 or SBP \< 90 mmHg) or with anemia (hemoglobin \< 11 g.dL-1) and at least 1 of the following criteria:

* Positive extended-FAST (Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma, ultrasound) finding liquid
* Severe bone injury :

* Fracture of at least two long bones
* Amputation above the knee or elbow
* Open fracture of the pelvis and/or mechanically unstable pelvis
* Severe trauma with a high probability of having a TIC (PTratio \> 1.20) according to the TIC score (score value ≥ 6 - cf. appendix 2)
* Emergency procedure with secondary informed consent signed by the patient

Exclusion Criteria

* Known pregnancy at admission
* Transfer from another hospital
* Cardiac arrest before randomization
* Patient with devastating injuries expected to die within the first hour post-admission
* Massive head injury with GCS 3 and bilateral mydriasis
* Pre-hospital transfusion of RBCs unit or coagulation factors concentrates
* No tranexamic acid before hospital admission
* Patient with uncontrolled major bleeding on arrival with direct admission to the operating room for rescue surgery
* Conventional or viscoelastic assay before inclusion/randomization
* Hypothermia \< 33°C
* Known use of oral anticoagulants (VKA or DOACs)
* Known congenital hemostasis abnormality
* Predictable transfer to another hospital \<12 hours after admission
* Patients protected by articles L1121-6 and L1121-7 of the Public Health Code, adults subject to legal protection measures
* Patient not affiliated to a social security scheme
* Patient included in other interventional study on coagulopathy.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Hospices Civils de Lyon

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Service d'Anesthésie - Réanimation, CHU Angers

Angers, , France

Site Status

Service d'Anesthésie - Réanimation, Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin CHU de Bordeaux

Bordeaux, , France

Site Status

Service de Réanimation - CH Annecy Genevois

Epagny METZ Tessy, , France

Site Status

Service d'Anesthésie - Réanimation, Hôpital Michallon- CHU Grenoble

La Tronche, , France

Site Status

Service d'Anesthésie - Réanimation, HCL Edouard Herriot

Lyon, , France

Site Status

Service d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, HCL Lyon Sud

Pierre-Benité, , France

Site Status

Service d'Anesthésie - Réanimation, HIA St Anne Toulon

Toulon, , France

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

France

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Jean-Stephane DAVID

Role: CONTACT

+33 4 78 86 41 40

Laurent VILLENEUVE

Role: CONTACT

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Guillaume BOUHOURS

Role: primary

Barbara BLONDEAU

Role: primary

Pierre BOUZAT

Role: primary

Anne Claire LUKASZEWICZ

Role: primary

Jean-Stéphane

Role: primary

Julien BORDES

Role: primary

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

69HCL22_0937

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.