Pharmacokinetics of tranexamic acid (TXA) delivered by expeditious routes in a swine model of polytrauma and hemorrhagic shock

OBJECTIVE

Hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death in civilian trauma centers and on the battlefield. One of the emerging treatment options for hemorrhage in austere environments is tranexamic acid (TXA). However, the landscape is not amenable to the current delivery standard. This study compared the pharmacokinetics of TXA via a standard 10-minute intravenous infusion (IV infusion), intravenous rapid push over 10 s (IV push), and intramuscular injection (IM) in a swine polytrauma and hemorrhagic shock model (trauma group) compared to uninjured controls (control group).

METHODS

Thirty swine were randomized to the trauma or control group. Following anesthesia, the trauma group experienced a simulated blast injury and 40% controlled hemorrhage. Subjects in both groups were then randomized to receive 1 g/10 mL TXA via IV infusion, IV push, or IM. Animals were monitored for four hours with serial blood sampling. Serum TXA concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and analyzed.

RESULTS

The time to maximum TXA concentration (Tmax) was not affected by trauma in IV infusion or IV push, but was affected in the IM administration with Tmax significantly slower than the control group (p = 0.016). The minimum effective serum concentration of TXA (Ceff, 10 µg/mL) was reached in less than one minute with IV infusion and instantaneously with IV push. Despite lower bioavailability, the time to reach Ceff (Teff) was achieved via IM administration in less than 10 minutes for both groups (6.4 minutes trauma vs. 2.1 minutes control).

CONCLUSIONS

In austere prehospital environments, an alternative to intravenous infusion of a life-saving medication is desired. Administration of TXA via all three methods reached the level needed to cause substantial inhibition of fibrinolysis within 10 minutes. The IV push method showed similar pharmacokinetics to IV infusion of TXA but can be delivered quickly without sacrificing an access site for 10 minutes.

A comparison of efficacy, efficiency, and durability in novel tourniquet designs

BACKGROUND

Exsanguination due to extremity hemorrhage is a major cause of preventable traumatic deaths. Extremity tourniquet use has been shown to be safe and improve survival. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, efficiency, and durability of the Generation 7 Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT; North American Rescue, Greer, SC), the Tactical Mechanical Tourniquet (TMT; Combat Medical Systems, Harrisburg, NC), and the SOF Tactical Tourniquet-Wide (SOFTT-W; Tactical Medical Solutions, Anderson, SC).

METHODS

This study was a three-phase randomized, cross-over trial. In successive trials, subjects were timed during the application of each tourniquet to the upper and lower extremity. Following successful lower extremity application, subjects low crawled 25 ft and then were dragged 25 ft, after which effectiveness was reassessed, as defined by the cessation of distal pulses by Doppler ultrasound.

RESULTS

In arm application, both the CAT and TMT had significantly less failure rates than the SOFTT-W (5.56%, 19.44%, 58.33%), with the CAT being the fastest tourniquet when compared with TMT and SOFTT-W (37.8 seconds, 65.01 seconds, 63.07 seconds). In leg application, the CAT had significantly less rates of failure when compared with the SOFTT-W, but there was no other significant difference between the tourniquets (27.78%, 44.44%, 61.11%). In addition, the CAT was significantly faster than both the TMT and SOFTT-W when applied to the leg (8.33 seconds, 40.96 seconds, 34.5 seconds). There was no significant difference in tourniquet failure rates between the three tourniquets after subject maneuvers in phase 3 (34.29%, 42.86%, 45.45%).

DISCUSSION

The CAT is as effective as the TMT and significantly more effective than the SOFTT-W. In addition, the CAT demonstrated shorter application times than either the TMT or SOFTT-W. However, there was no significant difference between the three tourniquets in their ability to maintain pulselessness after subject maneuvers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management, level II.