ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03402035SWATUpdated Feb 8, 2024Results posted

Shock, Whole Blood, and Assessment of TBI S.W.A.T. (LITES TO 2)

An observational study in Hemorrhagic Shock and Traumatic Brain Injury, sponsored by University of Pittsburgh. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 15 Years to 90 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-02-08.

Sponsored by University of Pittsburgh · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1,051
Ages
15 Years to 90 Years
Sex
All
01

Where this study stands

Counted across the records on this site · 2026-11-12

Among 35 studies in Shock, Hemorrhagic with a site in United States — 5 open to participants now, 6 under way, 2 of them phase 3. Shock, Hemorrhagic · United States.

Started
2018
with 1 other
Observational
9 of 35
1 open now
Registered
21st of 35
by date

Among the 35 studies in Shock, Hemorrhagic with a site in United States, this one is one of 2 that started in 2018, is one of 9 observational ones, and was the 21st registered.

By phase

35 studies; the count open now beside each. This study's row is marked.

Observationalthis study9 · 1 open
Phase 28 · 1 open
No phase7 · 1 open
Phase 37 · 1 open
Phase 12 · 0 open
Phase 2/32 · 1 open

By the year they started

First in 2006; this study’s year is marked. 2 started in 2018.

Size and results

Median enrollment 114 across the 25 interventional studies, 119 across the 9 observational. Of the 23 that completed or were terminated, 12 (52%) have results posted.

Was this useful?
Watch this landscapeDownload CSVWith an account: a weekly mail of what changed among 35 studies in Shock, Hemorrhagic with a site in United States, or all of them as a file.
02

Study summary

The LITES Network is an operational trauma center consortium which has the expertise, track record and confirmed capabilities to conduct prospective, multicenter, injury care and outcomes research of relevance to the Department of Defense (DoD).

Hemorrhage and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) are responsible for the largest proportion of all trauma-related deaths. It is the poly-trauma patient who suffers both hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury where a paucity of evidence exists to direct treatment, limiting the development of beneficial trauma practice guidelines.

The use of Whole Blood (WB) for early trauma resuscitation has been touted as the 'essential next step' in the evolution of trauma resuscitation. Despite its historical and more recent use, little is known regarding WB's benefit relative to the 'current practice' ratio-based blood component therapy in the acutely bleeding patient, and even less is known regarding its effects in patients with TBI.

AIM#1: Evaluate patient centered outcomes associated with early whole blood resuscitation practice as compared to component resuscitation in poly-trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock and further characterize outcome benefits in those with traumatic brain injury.

AIM#2: Characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints during the acute resuscitation phase of care and the associated/attributable outcomes for traumatic brain injury in patients with hemorrhagic shock.

General Hypothesis #1: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with improved mortality and resuscitation outcomes in poly-trauma patients and long term neurological outcome in those patients with traumatic brain injury as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.

General Hypothesis #2: Differences in prehospital and acute phase resuscitation systolic blood pressure will be associated with differential outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury at discharge and at 6 months.

Study Design: The LITES network will perform a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study over a 4 year period to determine the impact of whole blood resuscitation in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation with and without TBI. Early whole blood resuscitation will be compared to standard component resuscitation. The study will also further characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints in poly-trauma patients with traumatic brain injury. Six Trauma sites with appropriate characteristics will be selected from 12 LITES Network sites across the country.

Study Setting: The study will be performed utilizing busy level I trauma centers within the LITES Network located across the country, at sites where either whole blood has currently been incorporated into standard of care or where component blood transfusion is being utilized for patients in hemorrhagic shock at risk for large volume resuscitation.

Study Population: The study will focus on patients who suffer blunt or penetrating injury, transported to a SWAT participating LITES trauma center with evidence of hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume blood resuscitation.

Read the detailed description

Background

The LITES Network is an operational trauma center consortium which has the expertise, track record and confirmed capabilities to conduct prospective, multicenter, injury care and outcomes research of relevance to the Department of Defense (DoD). Clinical trials from the point of injury in the prehospital arena through the trauma bay and operating theatre, thru ICU and beyond discharge are feasible and critical to the overall goals of the network. Novel capabilities include prehospital point of care testing for shock severity and sequential coagulopathy measurements. The network and leadership have a track record of Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials and expertise with those injury subtypes including traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic shock and coagulopathy of trauma, poly-trauma and severe extremity trauma. In addition to the track record and proven capabilities, the LITES Network uses a central IRB and efficient methods to minimize time, resources, cost and regulatory burdens and improve recruitment, consent rates and ease of data acquisition to promote successful execution of those task orders provided to the network from the DoD.

Traumatic injury represents an incredible health care burden in the United States and worldwide.1 Hemorrhage and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) are responsible for the largest proportion of all trauma-related deaths. Despite advances in trauma resuscitation and brain injury management, few therapeutic interventions are available to reduce the downstream morbidity and mortality attributable to these injury patterns. It is the poly-trauma patient who suffers both hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury where a paucity of evidence exists to direct treatment, limiting the development of beneficial trauma practice guidelines.

Ongoing traumatic blood loss is complicated by trauma induced coagulopathy which results in further unbridled hemorrhage and resultant shock and organ dysfunction. Secondary to increasing evidence and knowledge, in-hospital resuscitation of traumatic hemorrhage has changed over the past decade to reduce the coagulopathic response to ischemia and tissue injury. The underlying principle of current resuscitation practice focuses on preventing or reversing the effects of coagulopathy with the early use of a balanced component transfusion strategy (1:1:1 - plasma: packed red blood cells: platelets). This reconstituted strategy has also been coined 'whole blood-like' resuscitation despite being inferior from a compositional standpoint relative to Whole Blood (WB). The use of WB was historically the gold standard for treating hemorrhagic shock during World War I and II, prior to sweeping changes in blood banking practice. The use of WB for early trauma resuscitation is making a resurgence, primarily based upon the military experience and has been touted as the 'essential next step' in the evolution of trauma resuscitation. Despite its historical and more recent use, little is known regarding WB's benefit relative to the 'current practice' ratio based blood component therapy in the acutely injured patients and even less is known regarding its effects in patients with TBI.

Permissive hypotension has been thought to improve outcome in injured patients with hemorrhagic shock in the prehospital and acute resuscitation phase of treatment allowing for the ability to obtain surgical control of bleeding while minimizing ongoing hemorrhage. Despite this benefit for hemorrhagic shock patients, hypotension has been consistently shown to be associated with worse outcomes in patients with TBI. Interestingly, newer animal data suggests permissive hypotension may be beneficial in a swine TBI model.The majority of prior, high level TBI trials have excluded patients with concomitant hemorrhagic shock. Prospective evidence and long term TBI outcome data are lacking for these complex poly-trauma patients and the most appropriate blood pressure and most efficacious resuscitation target for patients with TBI and acute hemorrhage remain poorly characterized.

Hypothesis #1A: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with a lower 4 hour mortality in poly-trauma patients as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.

Hypothesis #1B: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with a lower incidence of 12 hour and 24 hour mortality, a lower incidence of death from exsanguination, incidence of MOF, nosocomial infection, improved transfusion ratios, lower overall blood transfusion requirements and shorter time to hemostasis as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy.

Hypothesis #1C: Whole blood resuscitation will be associated with an improved Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended at 6 months post injury as compared to those resuscitated with component therapy in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Hypothesis #2A: A nadir prehospital and acute phase resuscitation systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 120 mmHg will be associated with improved traumatic brain injury outcomes at discharge and at 6 months.

Hypothesis #2B: The magnitude of the dose depth curve of systolic blood pressure during the prehospital and acute phase resuscitation will be associated with neurological outcome differences at discharge and at 6 months following traumatic brain injury.

Research Design and Methods

Study Design: The LITES Network will perform a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study over a 4 year period to determine the impact of whole blood resuscitation in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation with and without TBI. Early whole blood resuscitation will be compared to standard component resuscitation. The study will also further characterize blood pressure and resuscitation endpoints in poly-trauma patients with traumatic brain injury. Six trauma sites with appropriate characteristics will be selected from 12 network sites across the country.

Study Setting: The study will be performed utilizing busy level I trauma centers from within the LITES Network located across the country, at sites where either whole blood has currently been incorporated into standard of care or where component blood transfusion is being utilized for patients in hemorrhagic shock at risk for large volume resuscitation. Due to the paucity of trauma centers who are currently utilizing whole blood for trauma patients as standard of care, the potential to incorporate sites outside of the current LITES Network may be required over time.

03

Conditions studied

  • Hemorrhagic Shock
  • Traumatic Brain Injury

Keywords

  • Whole Blood Resuscitation
04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
15 Years to 90 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

The study will focus on patients who suffer blunt or penetrating injury, transported to a SWAT participating LITES trauma center with evidence of hemorrhagic shock at risk of large volume resuscitation.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

Patients with blunt or penetrating injury who meet the following criteria: 1, 2, and 3

  1. Has 2 or more of any of the following:

    1. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg) in the prehospital or emergency department setting,
    2. Penetrating mechanism,
    3. Positive FAST abdominal ultrasound,
    4. Heart Rate ≥ 120 in the prehospital or emergency department setting.

    AND

  2. Taken to the Operating Room (laparotomy, thoracotomy or vascular exploration) or Interventional Radiology within 60 minutes of arrival.

    AND

  3. Need of blood/blood component transfusion in prehospital setting, ED or OR within 60 minutes of arrival.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Age ≤ 14
  2. CPR > 5 consecutive minutes without ROSC
  3. Penetrating brain injury with brain matter exposed
  4. ED death
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1,051 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No
Biospecimen retention
Samples without dna

Groups and cohorts

  • Whole Blood

    Subjects at enrolling centers that utilize whole blood for hemorrhagic shock

  • Component Therapy

    Subjects at enrolling centers that utilize component therapy for hemorrhagic shock

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 4 Hour Mortality

    mortality at 4 hours

    Time frame: 4 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. 24 Hour Mortality

    mortality at 24 hours

    Time frame: 24 hours

07

Results

Posted Feb 8, 2024

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneWhole BloodComponent Therapy
Started624427
Completed624427
Not completed00

Outcome measures

Primary4 Hour Mortality

mortality at 4 hours

Time frame:
4 hours
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
4 Hour Mortality
ParticipantsWhole BloodComponent Therapy
4 Hour Mortality5032
Secondary24 Hour Mortality

mortality at 24 hours

Time frame:
24 hours
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
24 Hour Mortality
ParticipantsWhole BloodComponent Therapy
24 Hour Mortality8249

Adverse events

Collected over 28 days. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Whole Blood110/624 (17.6%)87/624 (13.9%)0/624 (0%)
Component Therapy66/427 (15.5%)48/427 (11.2%)0/427 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventWhole BloodComponent Therapy
Deep Vein ThrombosisBlood and lymphatic system disorders49/62422/427
Pulmonary EmbolismRespiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders38/62426/427

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Whole BloodComponent TherapyTotal
Median35.0 (26.0 to 51.0)35.0 (25.0 to 47.0)35.0 (26.0 to 49.0)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Whole BloodComponent TherapyTotal
Female78130208
Male546297843
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Whole BloodComponent TherapyTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American225139364
White280235515
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported11953172
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Whole BloodComponent TherapyTotal
United States6244271051
08

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Pittsburgh
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from May 2018 to primary completion in Sep 2021, 40 months.

Results were first posted in Feb 2024, 2 years 4 months after primary completion.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Dec 14, 2017
First posted
Jan 17, 2018
StartActual
May 1, 2018
Primary completionActual
Sep 26, 2021
CompletionActual
Mar 2, 2022
Results first posted
Feb 8, 2024
Last update
Feb 8, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 8, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03402035
Collaborators
United States Department of Defense
Responsible party
Jason Sperry (Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jan 17, 2018
Start date
May 1, 2018
Primary completion
Sep 26, 2021
Completion
Mar 2, 2022
Results posted
Feb 8, 2024
Last update
Feb 8, 2024

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion