Consensus-based criteria for actionable hemorrhage in pediatric trauma: A Delphi study

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion and hemorrhage control procedures can be unreliable surrogates for bleeding requiring intervention in children. Some receive unnecessary blood transfusions or lack intraoperative findings for hemorrhage, while others die before an intervention occurs. Standardized criteria for adjudicating the presence of actionable hemorrhage are needed. We aimed to define expert consensus criteria for retrospectively identifying actionable hemorrhage within 6 hours of emergency department (ED) arrival. METHODS: Experts from six specialties involved in pediatric trauma care participated in a modified Delphi study. Panelists were prompted to consider "actionable hemorrhage" as "severe bleeding or injuries at risk of progression to class III or IV shock without prompt intervention." In Round 1, panelists answered five free-response questions identifying criteria for actionable hemorrhage, including indicators for transfusion and hemorrhage control procedures, postmortem findings, and other relevant factors. Responses were consolidated and rated on a five-point strength-of-indication scale in subsequent rounds. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥70% agreement among panelists. Stability of consensus ( p >0.05) between rounds was assessed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. RESULTS: Three Delphi rounds were required to achieve a stable consensus. Twenty-nine of 32 participating panelists participated in all three rounds. Thirteen statements achieved stable consensus as strong indicators of actionable hemorrhage. Criteria with the highest agreement included partial/total resection of intrathoracic/abdominal bleeding solid organs (96.4%), hemoglobin