Prioritizing circulation over airway to improve survival in trauma patients with exsanguinating injuries: a world society of emergency surgery-panamerican trauma consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhage is one of the leading causes of preventable death in trauma patients. For decades, the Airway-Breathing-Circulation (ABC) approach has been the cornerstone of trauma care. However, emerging evidence suggests that prioritizing airway management in exsanguinating patients may worsen hypotension and increase mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Circulation-Airway-Breathing (CAB) approach compared to the traditional ABC sequence in improving survival in trauma patients with severe hemorrhage. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE, SCOPUS, web of science and EMBASE were searched for studies published up to September 2024. Eligible studies included observational and comparative studies reporting outcomes of trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk of bias assessment. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) for mortality, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the ABC and CAB approaches in prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: Six studies (N = 11,855 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed a significant increase in mortality associated with the ABC approach (pooled OR: 3.65, 95% CI: 1.74-7.65). Subgroup analysis of prospective cohort studies found an even higher mortality risk (POR: 9.99, 95% CI: 5.59-17.85) when compared with POR of retrospective studies (POR: 2.42, 95%CI: 1.08-5.36). High heterogeneity (I2 = 92%) was observed across the studies, likely due to variations in patient populations and resuscitation protocols. CONCLUSION: , aims to provide a review of the literature comparing the CAB approach to the traditional ABC sequence in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage, to develop a shared consensus statement based on the currently available evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".