Association of Trauma Molecular Endotypes With Differential Response to Transfusion Resuscitation Strategies

Importance It is not clear which severely injured patients with hemorrhagic shock may benefit most from a 1:1:1 vs 1:1:2 (plasma:platelets:red blood cells) resuscitation strategy. Identification of trauma molecular endotypes may reveal subgroups of patients with differential treatment response to various resuscitation strategies. Objective To derive trauma endotypes (TEs) from molecular data and determine whether these endotypes are associated with mortality and differential treatment response to 1:1:1 vs 1:1:2 resuscitation strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a secondary analysis of the Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) randomized clinical trial. The study cohort included individuals with severe injury from 12 North American trauma centers. The cohort was taken from the participants in the PROPPR trial who had complete plasma biomarker data available. Study data were analyzed on August 2, 2021, to October 25, 2022. Exposures TEs identified by K-means clustering of plasma biomarkers collected at hospital arrival. Main Outcomes and Measures An association between TEs and 30-day mortality was tested using multivariable relative risk (RR) regression adjusting for age, sex, trauma center, mechanism of injury, and injury severity score (ISS). Differential treatment response to transfusion strategy was assessed using an RR regression model for 30-day mortality by incorporating an interaction term for the product of endotype and treatment group adjusting for age, sex, trauma center, mechanism of injury, and ISS. Results A total of 478 participants (median [IQR] age, 34.5 [25-51] years; 384 male [80%]) of the 680 participants in the PROPPR trial were included in this study analysis. A 2-class model that had optimal performance in K-means clustering was found. TE-1 (n = 270) was characterized by higher plasma concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers (eg, interleukin 8 and tumor necrosis factor α) and significantly higher 30-day mortality compared with TE-2 (n = 208). There was a significant interaction between treatment arm and TE for 30-day mortality. Mortality in TE-1 was 28.6% with 1:1:2 treatment vs 32.6% with 1:1:1 treatment, whereas mortality in TE-2 was 24.5% with 1:1:2 treatment vs 7.3% with 1:1:1 treatment ( P for interaction = .001). Conclusions and Relevance Results of this secondary analysis suggest that endotypes derived from plasma biomarkers in trauma patients at hospital arrival were associated with a differential response to 1:1:1 vs 1:1:2 resuscitation strategies in trauma patients with severe injury. These findings support the concept of molecular heterogeneity in critically ill trauma populations and have implications for tailoring therapy for patients at high risk for adverse outcomes.