This blog post is part of our coverage of ICEM 2025 in Montreal, where some of the most important trauma and resuscitation trials of the past year were critically appraised.
1. Resuscitative Hysterotomy in Maternal Cardiac Arrest
Study: Leech C et al. Resuscitation 2025;207:110479.
Background: Cardiac arrest in pregnancy is an uncommon but profoundly time-critical emergency. Physiological changes during pregnancy—such as increased plasma volume, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and the enlarging uterus—complicate both the arrest and resuscitation process. Resuscitative hysterotomy (also called perimortem caesarean section or PMCS) is recommended within 4–5 minutes of maternal arrest to relieve aortocaval compression, improve venous return, and potentially enhance maternal resuscitation. International guidelines, including those from the Resuscitation Council UK and AHA, strongly advocate early surgical delivery during maternal cardiac arrest, yet real-world practice remains variable due to clinical hesitation and logistic challenges.
Methods: This systematic review synthesised 42 published reports describing 66 women who suffered maternal cardiac arrest and underwent resuscitative hysterotomy. The review analysed timing, maternal and neonatal survival, complications, and outcomes, including long-term neurological recovery where reported.
Key Findings: Maternal survival to hospital discharge was reported in just 4.5% of cases. However, neonatal survival was more encouraging at 45%, with neurologically intact survivors even when PMCS occurred more than 30 minutes after arrest. Interventions conducted within 5–10 minutes yielded the best outcomes. Crucially, neonatal survival was possible even with extended durations of maternal CPR (up to 47 minutes), challenging preconceptions about futility in prolonged resuscitation. In trauma there were no maternal survivors.
Critical Appraisal: Despite relying on observational case series and retrospective data, the study provides valuable insight into a rare and dramatic clinical situation. While subject to selection and publication bias, the data underline the consistent finding that earlier intervention yields better outcomes. The findings reinforce the need for simulation training and institutional preparedness. In many cases, hesitation stems from perceived inexperience—yet surgical delivery is often technically straightforward, and delay can be fatal.
Bottom Line: Although maternal survival remains low, early resuscitative hysterotomy offers real hope for neonatal survival. Practitioners should overcome inertia and act rapidly. Simulation, pre-packed kits, and clear protocols are essential in making timely intervention possible. If you’re thinking about doing it, you should probably already be doing it.** Despite poor maternal outcomes overall, early resuscitative hysterotomy can result in meaningful neonatal survival. Clinicians must prepare, simulate, and act early in maternal cardiac arrest.
2. PECARN Cervical Spine Rule for Children
Study: Leonard JC et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2024;8(7):482–490.
Background: Cervical spine injury in children is rare but can be catastrophic. Due to its low prevalence and the potentially devastating consequences of a missed injury, clinicians often rely on CT imaging with a low threshold for use. This approach, however, exposes children to unnecessary ionising radiation. The PECARN network sought to develop and validate a clinical prediction rule that could identify children at very low risk of cervical spine injury, thereby reducing unnecessary imaging.
Methods: This large prospective cohort study enrolled over 22,000 children from multiple U.S. paediatric trauma centres. The prediction model was derived using multivariate analysis of historical features, clinical examination findings, and mechanism of injury to identify children at low risk. The final rule was then validated in a separate cohort.
Key Findings: The rule demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.3% and a negative predictive value of 99.9% for clinically significant cervical spine injuries. The potential application of the rule could reduce CT use from 17.2% to 6.9%, significantly lowering unnecessary radiation exposure.
Critical Appraisal: The study is methodologically robust and features a large, representative sample, enhancing its internal validity. It fills a crucial evidence gap for paediatric trauma care. Nevertheless, external validation is required before widespread adoption, particularly in non-U.S. settings where injury mechanisms, prehospital triage practices, and resource availability may differ. Implementation may face logistical barriers, including clinician familiarity, institutional policies, and medicolegal concerns. Furthermore, the rule differs from adult decision tools such as NEXUS and the Canadian C-Spine Rule, which have different predictive variables and thresholds, highlighting the importance of paediatric-specific research.
Bottom Line: The PECARN cervical spine rule is a promising tool for reducing unnecessary CT imaging in paediatric trauma. It has the potential to safely spare many children from radiation exposure, though adoption will depend on further validation and system-level support across diverse healthcare settings.
3. TRAUMOX2 – Restrictive vs Liberal Oxygen in Trauma
Study: Arleth T et al. JAMA 2025;333(6):479–489.
Background: Oxygen is among the most frequently administered therapies in emergency and critical care, particularly for trauma patients. Historically, clinicians have adopted a liberal approach, providing high concentrations of oxygen under the assumption that more oxygen must be better. However, evidence from ICU settings suggests that hyperoxia may be harmful, potentially increasing oxidative stress, vasoconstriction, and pulmonary injury. In particular, patients with traumatic injuries and intact respiratory drive may be at risk of complications from excessive oxygen exposure. TRAUMOX2 sought to examine whether a restrictive oxygenation target (SpO₂ ~94%) would result in outcomes comparable to a more liberal oxygen approach (typically targeting higher saturation or FiO₂ near 100%) in trauma patients receiving acute care.
Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in Scandinavian trauma centres. Adult patients admitted with trauma and requiring oxygen were randomised within 8 hours of admission to either a restrictive oxygenation strategy (targeting SpO₂ of ~94%) or liberal oxygen administration. The primary composite outcome was death or major respiratory complications at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included radiographic signs of atelectasis, ICU length of stay, and days on mechanical ventilation.
Key Findings: The trial demonstrated no significant difference in the composite primary outcome between the two groups. However, patients in the restrictive oxygen group had fewer radiographic signs of atelectasis. There was no increase in adverse events, suggesting that a more conservative oxygen approach is not only safe but may mitigate iatrogenic pulmonary injury.
Critical Appraisal: TRAUMOX2 adds important evidence in support of oxygen stewardship in trauma care. While it aligns with previous ICU-based trials that found no benefit—and potential harm—from liberal oxygenation, its strength lies in applying those findings to a trauma population, which has historically been underrepresented in oxygen trials. Limitations include the relatively short duration of the intervention (8 hours) and possible underpowering for rare complications. Importantly, the results may not be generalisable to all trauma settings, particularly in resource-limited environments or in patients with traumatic brain injury, where specific oxygen targets may still be required.
Bottom Line: Routine liberal oxygen therapy offers no outcome benefit and may contribute to avoidable pulmonary complications in trauma patients. A target SpO₂ of ~94% is safe and should be adopted as standard practice in the absence of other clinical indications for higher FiO₂. This study reinforces the broader critical care shift toward personalised and judicious oxygen use.
4a. CRYOSTAT-2 – Early Cryoprecipitate in Bleeding Trauma
Study: Davenport R et al. JAMA 2023;330(19):1882–1891.
Background: In the setting of major trauma and haemorrhage, fibrinogen is often the first coagulation factor to become critically depleted. It plays a central role in clot formation, platelet aggregation, and maintenance of clot integrity. Cryoprecipitate is a blood product rich in fibrinogen and is routinely administered in many trauma protocols, often without awaiting laboratory confirmation of hypofibrinogenaemia. Prior observational studies have suggested a potential benefit of early cryoprecipitate administration in reducing mortality and transfusion requirements. However, robust randomised data to support early empirical administration were lacking prior to CRYOSTAT-2.
Methods: This pragmatic, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial enrolled over 1600 trauma patients with active bleeding and predicted need for massive transfusion across multiple UK major trauma centres. Patients were randomised to receive early high-dose cryoprecipitate (within 90 minutes of hospital arrival) in addition to standard care or to receive standard care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included thrombotic complications, transfusion requirements, and length of hospital stay.
Key Findings: The study found no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the early cryoprecipitate group (26.1%) and standard care group (25.3%). Rates of thromboembolic complications and other adverse events were similar between groups. Despite the lack of mortality benefit, cryoprecipitate was safely administered and did not increase complications.
Critical Appraisal: CRYOSTAT-2 was a well-designed, high-quality trial that provides a definitive answer to a key question in trauma resuscitation. It challenges the routine, protocolised use of early cryoprecipitate in bleeding trauma patients without targeted indication. However, it does not negate the importance of fibrinogen replacement when laboratory-confirmed hypofibrinogenaemia is present. In some jurisdictions, fibrinogen concentrate may offer a faster, more concentrated option, although head-to-head comparisons are still needed. Global implementation must also consider resource availability—cryoprecipitate storage, thawing times, and administration logistics can differ across systems.
Bottom Line: Empirical early administration of cryoprecipitate does not reduce mortality in major trauma. Fibrinogen replacement should be considered based on individualised lab results or in systems using point-of-care viscoelastic testing, rather than as a universal pre-emptive strategy.
4b. Systematic Review: Early Fibrinogen Replacement in Traumatic Haemorrhage
Study: Burt T, et al. Crit Care 2025;29:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05269-y
Background: Fibrinogen is the first coagulation factor to fall during traumatic haemorrhage and plays a critical role in clot formation and haemostasis. Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC), often present in major bleeding, is a significant predictor of mortality. Hypofibrinogenaemia is a recognised component of TIC and associated with increased transfusion requirements and worse outcomes. Fibrinogen can be replaced using either cryoprecipitate or fibrinogen concentrate (FgC), yet there remains no consensus on the optimal strategy, dose, or timing. Early fibrinogen replacement has theoretical benefits, especially given that fibrinolysis and coagulation derangement begin within minutes of trauma. However, evidence from randomised controlled trials has been inconclusive, necessitating a comprehensive review.
Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included five RCTs (1758 patients) and seven observational studies evaluating early fibrinogen replacement (within 4 hours of hospital arrival) using cryoprecipitate or FgC. The primary outcome was mortality (28- or 30-day or in-hospital). Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements and incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). The authors conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs and narrative synthesis for observational studies. The GRADE framework was used to assess evidence quality.
Key Findings:
- No difference in mortality was observed between early fibrinogen replacement and control (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.68–1.56).
- Subgroup analysis of FgC vs control showed OR 1.99 (95% CI 0.80–4.94) with no significant mortality benefit.
- Subgroup analysis of cryoprecipitate vs control showed OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.25–2.01), again with no mortality benefit.
- No consistent differences in RBC, FFP, or platelet transfusion volumes were reported at 24 hours.
- DVT incidence did not differ significantly between intervention and control groups (3% vs 4%).
Critical Appraisal: This comprehensive review collates the best available evidence on fibrinogen replacement in trauma. The inclusion of both cryoprecipitate and FgC enhances relevance across international systems. Despite theoretical and observational support for early fibrinogen use, the meta-analysis of RCTs failed to demonstrate mortality benefit. Evidence quality was rated as low due to indirectness and imprecision. Practical challenges remain: cryoprecipitate requires thawing and storage, while FgC offers logistical advantages but at higher cost. Importantly, the review underscores the need for further RCTs comparing empiric vs goal-directed fibrinogen therapy using viscoelastic testing. Moreover, global uptake will depend on resource availability and system infrastructure.
Bottom Line: Despite its central role in clotting, early empiric fibrinogen replacement (either cryoprecipitate or FgC) does not improve mortality or reduce transfusion requirements in bleeding trauma patients. Until more evidence emerges, fibrinogen should be targeted based on laboratory or viscoelastic testing, not given empirically. Clotting is proving to be really challenging. As one editorial put it, clotting factors are not like antibiotics, you can’t give them out without thinking hard about what the consequences might be for individual patients. There is a lot more work to be done before we crack trauma coagulopathy.
You should also read this review on precision trauma care here by Karim Brohi.
5. Prehospital Partial REBOA
Study: Lendrum RA et al. JAMA Surg 2024;159(9):998–1007.
Background: REBOA (resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) is increasingly recognised as a temporising measure to support central perfusion in patients with life-threatening subdiaphragmatic haemorrhage. While most of the literature to date has focused on in-hospital deployment, the IDEAL 2A study examined its feasibility in the prehospital setting—where speed of intervention is often most critical.
Methods: This feasibility study was conducted in a UK-based prehospital trauma system using a structured clinical protocol. Partial occlusion was used to minimise ischaemic complications and allow some distal perfusion. The study evaluated technical success, physiological response, and patient outcomes.
Key Findings: Among 14 prehospital REBOA attempts, deployment was successful in 11. Systolic blood pressure increased significantly post-occlusion, suggesting effective aortic control. Despite the severity of illness, two patients survived to hospital discharge.
Critical Appraisal: Although limited by small numbers and observational design, this study is an important proof of concept. It demonstrates that with adequate preparation, REBOA can be safely delivered in the prehospital phase. The study highlights key challenges, including equipment portability, vascular access skills, and monitoring requirements. Additionally, it reinforces the need for rigorous team training, given the technical and physiological complexity of the procedure. International uptake will depend on system capability, availability of interventional expertise, and appropriate patient selection. Wider use may also be limited by the need for real-time ultrasound or fluoroscopy for optimal catheter placement, which is not yet universally available prehospital.
Bottom Line: Prehospital REBOA is feasible and potentially life-saving in well-selected patients. However, it should only be considered by highly trained prehospital teams working within mature trauma systems. Ongoing research, rigorous training programs, and standardised protocols will be critical for broader and safer adoption.
6. SABRE – Serratus Blocks for Rib Fractures
Study: Partyka C et al. JAMA Surg 2024;159(7):810–817.
Background: Rib fractures are a common consequence of blunt thoracic trauma and are associated with severe pain, impaired ventilation, and increased risk of pneumonia, particularly in older patients. Effective analgesia is critical not only for comfort but also to enable coughing and deep breathing to prevent pulmonary complications. Systemic opioids are frequently used but can exacerbate respiratory depression. Regional anaesthesia has long been recommended, yet its uptake in ED and prehospital settings remains limited by access to anaesthesia providers. The serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) targets the lateral thoracic wall and is increasingly recognised as an accessible, ultrasound-guided technique that can be performed by non-anaesthetists.
Methods: The SABRE trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted across Australian hospitals. It compared early SAPBs to standard systemic analgesia in adult patients with isolated rib fractures. Primary outcomes included pain scores over the first 24 hours; secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and respiratory complications.
Key Findings: Patients receiving SAPBs had significantly lower pain scores and required fewer opioids than those managed with standard care. Notably, benefit was observed even in patients with posterior rib fractures—traditionally considered outside the block’s coverage zone. No increase in complications or adverse events was reported.
Critical Appraisal: The trial is well-conducted and addresses a real-world issue in trauma care. Although blinding was not feasible and polytrauma patients were excluded, the results are highly applicable to ED and trauma ward environments. SAPBs offer a practical tool for improving analgesia, reducing opioid burden, and potentially preventing complications like pneumonia. From an analgesic ladder perspective, SAPBs could serve as a first-line adjunct to paracetamol and NSAIDs, reducing or eliminating the need for stronger opioids. Widespread adoption will require upskilling emergency clinicians in ultrasound-guided techniques, development of institutional protocols, and integration into trauma checklists.
Bottom Line: Serratus anterior plane blocks are safe, effective, and easy to learn. They should be considered early in rib fracture management, particularly in older adults or those at risk of respiratory decline. As with fascia iliaca blocks in hip fracture, the SAPB may well become the new standard in chest wall trauma analgesia.
7. Prehospital Resuscitative Thoracotomy
Study: Perkins ZB et al. JAMA Surg 2025;160(4):432–440.
Background: Prehospital resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is an advanced trauma intervention used in select cases of traumatic cardiac arrest, particularly penetrating chest trauma. While traditionally confined to emergency departments and operating rooms, its application in prehospital settings has expanded in a few high-acuity trauma systems. The aim is to relieve cardiac tamponade, control major haemorrhage, or perform open cardiac massage in the critical prehospital window where surgical delay may be fatal. Controversy remains over its role, timing, and feasibility, especially in blunt trauma.
Methods: This retrospective analysis examined 601 RT cases managed by London’s Air Ambulance over several years. The study evaluated outcomes stratified by mechanism of injury, location and timing of intervention, and underlying pathology. It represents the largest single-service dataset on prehospital RT worldwide.
Key Findings: Overall survival was 5%, with the highest survival rate (21%) in patients with penetrating trauma and cardiac tamponade. No survivors were identified among patients with blunt trauma who had been in arrest for more than 15 minutes. Survival was associated with shorter scene times, earlier intervention, and reversible pathology. Functional outcomes among survivors were generally favourable.
Critical Appraisal: The size and detail of this dataset provide valuable insights into patient selection and system performance. Importantly, it shows that while survival is rare, it is not negligible—and meaningful neurological recovery is achievable. Prehospital RT requires exceptional teamwork, strict protocols, and constant training. Compared to in-hospital RT, survival rates are comparable when performed under appropriate indications, highlighting that rapid access rather than location may be the deciding factor. International uptake remains low, likely due to medicolegal concerns, provider training limitations, and variations in trauma systems.
Bottom Line: Prehospital RT is a viable, life-saving option in highly selected trauma patients, particularly those with penetrating injuries and signs of tamponade. Systems should support structured training, protocol development, and regular audit to safely deliver this advanced intervention outside hospital walls.
8. NIBP vs IBP in Prehospital Monitoring
Study: Perera Y et al. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2024;32:77.
Background: Accurate blood pressure measurement is essential in the management of critically unwell trauma patients. Invasive arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring is considered the gold standard in intensive care units, but its use is limited in prehospital settings due to training, time, and equipment constraints. Consequently, non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring via oscillometric cuffs remains the default approach. Concerns have long existed regarding the reliability of NIBP readings, especially in patients with extremes of physiology such as hypotension or traumatic brain injury.
Methods: This retrospective observational study reviewed over 2000 paired blood pressure recordings (NIBP and IBP) from critically ill trauma patients treated by the Thames Valley Air Ambulance. Agreement was defined using standard thresholds: within 20 mmHg for SBP/DBP and within 10 mmHg for MAP.
Key Findings: Agreement between NIBP and IBP was poor, particularly for MAP where concordance occurred in only about 50% of cases. NIBP tended to overestimate BP in hypotensive patients and underestimate it in hypertensive states. These discrepancies were most pronounced at the physiologic extremes where accuracy is most critical.
Critical Appraisal: The study highlights a significant limitation in current prehospital monitoring standards. Although retrospective, it leverages a large dataset and reflects real-world practice in a mature prehospital system. The findings suggest that reliance on NIBP alone may lead to under- or over-treatment, especially in patients with traumatic brain injury where MAP targets are tightly linked to outcomes. Similarly, resuscitation thresholds for hemorrhagic shock or vasopressor titration may be skewed by inaccurate readings. The introduction of portable, real-time IBP monitoring could enhance patient safety and decision-making, but adoption will depend on training, cost, and infrastructure.
Bottom Line: NIBP is unreliable in critically unwell trauma patients, particularly at the extremes of blood pressure. Where possible, prehospital teams should consider arterial line placement when BP readings will influence resuscitation decisions—especially in head injury or haemorrhagic shock. Future developments in non-invasive continuous monitoring may help bridge the gap.
9. HEMOTION – Transfusion in Traumatic Brain Injury
Study: Turgeon AF et al. NEJM 2024;391:722–733.
Background: Transfusion thresholds in traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain debated. Anaemia may impair cerebral oxygen delivery, particularly in the early post-injury period where autoregulation may be compromised. Conversely, transfusions carry known risks, including immunomodulation, increased infection rates, and transfusion-related lung injury. Previous critical care trials in general ICU populations—such as TRICC and TRISS—have favoured restrictive strategies (e.g. Hb <7 g/dL), but these trials excluded patients with severe TBI. This led to uncertainty about optimal haemoglobin targets in this neurologically vulnerable cohort.
Methods: This international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial recruited 742 patients with moderate to severe TBI. Patients were randomised to receive transfusions at either a restrictive (Hb ≤7 g/dL) or liberal (Hb ≤10 g/dL) threshold. The primary outcome was neurological function at six months, assessed using the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE). Secondary outcomes included mortality, thromboembolic events, and pulmonary complications such as ARDS.
Key Findings: There was no significant difference in favourable neurological outcome at 6 months between the groups. However, the liberal group had a higher incidence of ARDS (3.3% vs 0.8%). Mortality and thromboembolic event rates were similar. Transfusion volumes were predictably higher in the liberal group, and time to first transfusion was shorter.
Critical Appraisal: This trial was rigorously conducted with clear eligibility criteria and strong follow-up. The findings provide important clarity: a restrictive transfusion strategy appears safe in patients with moderate to severe TBI and avoids unnecessary exposure to transfusion-associated risks. Importantly, the study’s results align with broader ICU literature advocating for transfusion restraint, but add confidence for application in neurocritical care. The trial may not reflect all real-world practice, particularly in settings where cerebral oxygen monitoring or intracranial pressure data guide transfusion decisions. Additionally, the exclusion of patients with multi-system trauma limits generalisability slightly. Nonetheless, these findings support a shift away from automatic liberal transfusion thresholds in isolated TBI.
Bottom Line: In patients with moderate or severe TBI, a restrictive transfusion strategy (Hb ≤7 g/dL) is safe and does not worsen neurological outcomes. Given the increased risk of pulmonary complications with liberal transfusion, restrictive strategies should be the default approach unless guided otherwise by cerebral perfusion or oxygenation monitoring.
10. Peri-Intubation Hypoxia – DSI vs RSI
Study: Subramanian A et al. Resuscitation Plus 2024;15:100420.
Background: Trauma patients often present with altered mental status, agitation, hypoxia, and haemodynamic instability—making airway management particularly challenging. Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) is the conventional approach, using immediate sedation and paralysis to facilitate airway control. However, in patients who are hypoxic or uncooperative, RSI can precipitate critical desaturation. Delayed Sequence Intubation (DSI) offers an alternative: a period of dissociation—typically with ketamine—enabling effective preoxygenation before paralysis. While increasingly adopted in emergency medicine, DSI has not been widely studied in trauma-specific populations.
Methods: This single-centre randomised controlled trial enrolled 160 critically injured patients on arrival to trauma triage. Participants were randomised to DSI or RSI strategies. The primary outcome was peri-intubation hypoxia, defined as SpO₂ <90%. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, aspiration events, and adverse haemodynamic changes.
Key Findings: DSI significantly reduced hypoxia rates (15.8% vs. 33.3%) and improved first-pass success. There was no increase in aspiration, hypotension, or other complications. The results suggest DSI facilitates better preparation in physiologically unstable trauma patients who might otherwise crash on induction.
Critical Appraisal: This is a valuable addition to trauma airway literature. While limited by single-centre design and modest sample size, the study was prospectively conducted with clear definitions and outcome measures. Its findings align with broader critical care research supporting the role of DSI in complex airways. Implementation of DSI requires training and protocol integration into airway algorithms. Additionally, patient selection is critical—DSI is best suited for patients who are hypoxic, combative, or physiologically fragile but still breathing spontaneously. In those with GCS ≤3 or impending arrest, conventional RSI may remain the optimal choice.
Bottom Line: DSI reduces hypoxia and improves intubation success in select trauma patients. Incorporating it into trauma airway algorithms could improve safety and performance—but success depends on training, protocolisation, and good clinical judgement.
References
- Leech C, et al. Resuscitative hysterotomy for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Resuscitation. 2025;207:110479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110479
- Simon Carley, “Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Following Resuscitative Hysterotomy for OHCA. Time and survival #dogmalysis.,” in St.Emlyn’s, February 16, 2025, https://www.stemlynsblog.org/maternal-and-neonatal-outcomes-following-resuscitative-hysterotomy-for-ohca-time-and-survival-dogmalysis/.
- Leonard JC, et al. A clinical prediction rule for cervical spine imaging in children after trauma. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2024;8(7):482–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00104-4
- Arleth T, et al. Restrictive vs Liberal Oxygenation Targets in Trauma Patients (TRAUMOX2). JAMA. 2025;333(6):479–489. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.0147
- Davenport R, et al. Effect of early high-dose cryoprecipitate on mortality in trauma patients with bleeding (CRYOSTAT-2). JAMA. 2023;330(19):1882–1891. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.0124
- Burt T, Guilliam A, Cole E, Davenport R. Effect of early administration of fibrinogen replacement therapy in traumatic haemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials with narrative synthesis of observational studies. Crit Care. 2025 Jan 28;29(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s13054-025-05269-y. PMID: 39875966; PMCID: PMC11773828.
- Dan Horner, “CRYOSTAT-2 @ St Emlyns,” in St.Emlyn’s, October 18, 2023, https://www.stemlynsblog.org/cryostat-2-st-emlyns/.
- Bouzat P, Charbit J, Abback P-S , et al. Efficacy and Safety of Early Administration of 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Patients With Trauma at Risk of Massive Transfusion: The PROCOAG Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2023;329:1367–75. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.4080
- Brohi K. The path to precision trauma care. Emergency Medicine Journal 2025;42:220-221.
- Lendrum RA, et al. Prehospital partial REBOA in trauma patients: the IDEAL 2A feasibility study. JAMA Surg. 2024;159(9):998–1007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0044
- Partyka C, et al. Serratus anterior plane blocks for early rib fracture management (SABRE). JAMA Surg. 2024;159(7):810–817. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0021
- Simon Carley, “Serratus Anterior Plane Blocks for rib fractures in the Emergency Department,” in St.Emlyn’s, May 24, 2024, https://www.stemlynsblog.org/jc-serratus-anterior-plane-blocks-for-rib-fractures-in-the-ed-st-emlyns/.
- Perkins ZB, et al. Prehospital resuscitative thoracotomy for traumatic cardiac arrest. JAMA Surg. 2025;160(4):432–440. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2025.0112
- Halden Hutchinson-Bazely, “JC: Pre Hospital Resuscitative Thoracotomy for Traumatic Cardiac Arrest – data from 21 years at London’s Air Ambulance,” in St.Emlyn’s, March 6, 2025, https://www.stemlynsblog.org/laa-resuscitative-thoracotomy/.
- Perera Y, et al. Non-invasive versus arterial pressure monitoring in prehospital critical care. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2024;32:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01240-y
- Turgeon AF, et al. Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury. N Engl J Med. 2024;391:722–733. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2404360
- Subramanian A, et al. Peri-intubation hypoxia after delayed versus rapid sequence intubation in critically injured patients. Resuscitation Plus. 2024;15:100420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100420
