Scientific priorities and strategic planning for resuscitation research and life saving therapy following traumatic injury: Report of the PULSE Trauma Work Group

C. James Carrico, John B. Holcomb, Irshad H. Chaudry, James Atkins, Lance Becker, Charles Cairns, Henry Chang, J. Perren Cobb, James M. Ecklund, Henry Halperin, Ahamad H. Idris, Geoffrey Ling, Ronald V. Maier, Guy McKhann, Mary Ellen Michel, Graham Nichol, Norman Paradis, Paul Pepe, Donald S. Prough, Claudia RobertsonThomas Scalea, Scott D. Somers, Alex B. Valadka, Carole Webb

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

48 Scopus citations

Abstract

Traumatic injury and its sequelae remain a major, unrecognized public health problem in North America. Traumatic injury is the principal cause of death in patients aged 1-44 years and the overall leading cause of life-years lost in the United States. Recognizing this, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), in conjunction with other federal agencies, organized a conference in June 2000 to discuss the basic and clinical research needs that could lead to improved outcomes following cardiopulmonary or post injury resuscitation. The Post Resuscitative and Initial Utility of Life Saving Efforts (PULSE) Workshop resulted and eight work groups were established to focus on various aspects, including organ systems, pharmacology, epidemiology, and trauma. The Trauma Work Group recommendations are presented in this article. Despite the recognition of improved survival and outcome through advancements in trauma systems and trauma care, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) support ratio for trauma research is only 0.10, compared with 1.65 for cancer research and a remarkable 3.51 for AIDS and HIV infection research. The successful federal HIV research program has significantly decreased the morbidity and mortality over the last ten years at a cost of $1.4 billion per year. A coordinated trauma research program should aim to replicate the success achieved by such programs; however, a centralized federal "home" for trauma research does not exist. Consequently, the existing limited research support is derived from NIH institutes in addition to other federal and state agencies. This report serves to describe some of the obstacles and outline various strategies and priorities for basic science, clinical, and translational trauma resuscitation research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)621-626
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume9
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Animal models
  • Clinical care
  • Funding
  • Organ systems
  • Research strategies
  • System organization
  • Technologies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Scientific priorities and strategic planning for resuscitation research and life saving therapy following traumatic injury: Report of the PULSE Trauma Work Group'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Carrico, C. J., Holcomb, J. B., Chaudry, I. H., Atkins, J., Becker, L., Cairns, C., Chang, H., Cobb, J. P., Ecklund, J. M., Halperin, H., Idris, A. H., Ling, G., Maier, R. V., McKhann, G., Michel, M. E., Nichol, G., Paradis, N., Pepe, P., Prough, D. S., ... Webb, C. (2002). Scientific priorities and strategic planning for resuscitation research and life saving therapy following traumatic injury: Report of the PULSE Trauma Work Group. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(6), 621-626. https://doi.org/10.1197/aemj.9.6.621