8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Nonlinear dynamic modeling and model predictive control of thrombin generation to treat trauma‐induced coagulopathy

      1 , 1 , 2 , 3
      International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This article is motivated by the pressing need to robustly automate clinical interventions for trauma‐induced coagulopathy (TIC). TIC occurs after severe trauma and shock, and has poor outcomes and about 30% mortality. Although modulating the blood proteins that drive TIC can improve patient outcomes, no practical control‐oriented methodology exists to accurately capture biochemical process dynamics and satisfactorily regulate clotting. Hence, we propose a nonlinear dynamic coagulation model that distills the complex biochemical reactions of clotting and also simultaneously generalizes an existing linear phenomenological model. Using our new nonlinear model, we demonstrate the feasibility of model predictive control (MPC) to automate clinical treatments, first in a single‐input case that is similar to current open‐loop clinical practice, and second in a multi‐input case that administers three blood proteins as system inputs to attain satisfactory TIC treatment. The output in both cases is the key clotting protein thrombin. To test robustness, we confirm that both single‐input and multi‐input MPC are suitable for TIC treatment in the presence of an experimentally observed nonlinearity, an unknown state‐dependent power law input delay. Thus, this article provides a strong foundation to transition current open‐loop clinical approaches to closed‐loop process control.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          An Introduction to Statistical Learning

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial.

            Severely injured patients experiencing hemorrhagic shock often require massive transfusion. Earlier transfusion with higher blood product ratios (plasma, platelets, and red blood cells), defined as damage control resuscitation, has been associated with improved outcomes; however, there have been no large multicenter clinical trials. To determine the effectiveness and safety of transfusing patients with severe trauma and major bleeding using plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 ratio compared with a 1:1:2 ratio. Pragmatic, phase 3, multisite, randomized clinical trial of 680 severely injured patients who arrived at 1 of 12 level I trauma centers in North America directly from the scene and were predicted to require massive transfusion between August 2012 and December 2013. Blood product ratios of 1:1:1 (338 patients) vs 1:1:2 (342 patients) during active resuscitation in addition to all local standard-of-care interventions (uncontrolled). Primary outcomes were 24-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality. Prespecified ancillary outcomes included time to hemostasis, blood product volumes transfused, complications, incidence of surgical procedures, and functional status. No significant differences were detected in mortality at 24 hours (12.7% in 1:1:1 group vs 17.0% in 1:1:2 group; difference, -4.2% [95% CI, -9.6% to 1.1%]; P = .12) or at 30 days (22.4% vs 26.1%, respectively; difference, -3.7% [95% CI, -10.2% to 2.7%]; P = .26). Exsanguination, which was the predominant cause of death within the first 24 hours, was significantly decreased in the 1:1:1 group (9.2% vs 14.6% in 1:1:2 group; difference, -5.4% [95% CI, -10.4% to -0.5%]; P = .03). More patients in the 1:1:1 group achieved hemostasis than in the 1:1:2 group (86% vs 78%, respectively; P = .006). Despite the 1:1:1 group receiving more plasma (median of 7 U vs 5 U, P < .001) and platelets (12 U vs 6 U, P < .001) and similar amounts of red blood cells (9 U) over the first 24 hours, no differences between the 2 groups were found for the 23 prespecified complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, and transfusion-related complications. Among patients with severe trauma and major bleeding, early administration of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 ratio compared with a 1:1:2 ratio did not result in significant differences in mortality at 24 hours or at 30 days. However, more patients in the 1:1:1 group achieved hemostasis and fewer experienced death due to exsanguination by 24 hours. Even though there was an increased use of plasma and platelets transfused in the 1:1:1 group, no other safety differences were identified between the 2 groups. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01545232.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Increasing trauma deaths in the United States.

              To determine the impact of the increasing aging population on trauma mortality relative to mortality from cancer and heart disease in the United States.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control
                Intl J Robust & Nonlinear
                Wiley
                1049-8923
                1099-1239
                June 2023
                January 05 2022
                June 2023
                : 33
                : 9
                : 5128-5144
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
                [2 ] J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
                [3 ] Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
                Article
                10.1002/rnc.5963
                0b822a3a-079a-4cfd-9f07-6ee5314b3440
                © 2023

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article