Intravenous Versus Intraosseous Use of Tranexamic Acid in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury

Introduction: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic drug that has been demonstrated to reduce head injury-related mortality when given within 2 h of injury in patients with traumatic brain injury and intracranial hemorrhage. It is usually administered via intravenous (IV) access, which can be difficult to obtain in prehospital and austere settings. Intraosseous (IO) access is fast and offers an alternative when IV access proves challenging; however, TXA administration via IO access has never been studied in humans. We sought to determine if the total drug exposure of TXA given in the prehospital setting in patients with moderate or severe brain injury differs based on route of administration.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the prehospital TXA for traumatic brain injury trial (NCT01990768). Participants who received TXA via IO administration were compared to those who received TXA via IV administration and stratified by renal function category based on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria. The area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal rule (Phoenix WinNonlin 8.3, Certara, Princeton NJ) to obtain total drug exposure. The inverse variance method was used to combine observations within strata and calculate mean differences.

Results: Of the 966 participants enrolled in the trial, 345 participants received a 2-g TXA prehospital bolus (11 IO, 334 IV); 312 participants received a 1-g TXA prehospital bolus followed by a 1-g TXA infusion in-hospital over 8 h (13 IO, 299 IV). After exclusion because of missing data and extreme estimated AUC, 233 IV and eight IO participants in the 2-g bolus arm and 152 IV and eight IO participants in the 1-g bolus 1-g infusion arm remained. Participants did not differ by age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or clot lysis at 30 min on thromboelastography. No difference in the mean AUCs were observed between IV and IO for either the 2-g bolus group (-2.6 μ g/mL/h [IO] compared to IV, 95% confidence interval: -28.4 to 23.3 μ g/mL/h) or the 1-g bolus/1-g infusion group (-13.0 μ g/mL/h [IO] compared to IV, 95% confidence interval: -236.2 to 210.3 μ g/mL/h).

Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest that the administration of TXA via IO and IV routes may result in similar total drug exposure. Further studies incorporating larger numbers with clinical outcomes are needed to confirm this finding.