BACKGROUND: In the PRospective Observational Multicenter Major Trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study, waiver of consent was used because previous literature reported low response rates and subsequent bias. The goal of this article was to examine the rationale and tradeoffs of using waiver of consent in PROMMTT. METHODS: PROMMTT enrolled trauma patients receiving at least 1 U of red blood cells within 6 hours after admission at 10 US Level 1 trauma centers. Local institutional review boards (IRBs) from all sites approved the study. Site 8 was required by their IRB to attempt consent but was allowed to retain data on patients unable to be consented. RESULTS: Of 121 subjects enrolled at Site 8, 55 consents were obtained (46%), and no patient or legally authorized representative refused to give consent. Of the patients, 36 (30%) died, and 6 (5%) were discharged before consent could be attempted. Consent was attempted but not possible among 24 patients (20%). Of the 10 clinical sites, 6 of the local IRBs approved collection of residual blood samples, 1 had previous approval to collect timed blood samples under a separate protocol, and 3 reported that their local IRBs would not approve collection of residual blood under a waiver of consent. CONCLUSION: Waiver of consent was used in PROMMTT because of the potential adverse impact of consent refusals; however, there were no refusals. If the IRB for Site 8 had required withdrawal of patients unable to consent and destruction of their data, a serious bias would likely have been introduced. Other tradeoffs included a reduction in sites participating in residual blood collection and a smaller than expected amount of residual blood collected among sites operating under a waiver of consent. Noninterventional emergency research studies should consider these potential tradeoffs carefully before deciding whether waiver of consent would best achieve the goals of a study.
BACKGROUND: In the PRospective Observational Multicenter Major Trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study, waiver of consent was used because previous literature reported low response rates and subsequent bias. The goal of this article was to examine the rationale and tradeoffs of using waiver of consent in PROMMTT. METHODS: PROMMTT enrolled traumapatients receiving at least 1 U of red blood cells within 6 hours after admission at 10 US Level 1 trauma centers. Local institutional review boards (IRBs) from all sites approved the study. Site 8 was required by their IRB to attempt consent but was allowed to retain data on patients unable to be consented. RESULTS: Of 121 subjects enrolled at Site 8, 55 consents were obtained (46%), and no patient or legally authorized representative refused to give consent. Of the patients, 36 (30%) died, and 6 (5%) were discharged before consent could be attempted. Consent was attempted but not possible among 24 patients (20%). Of the 10 clinical sites, 6 of the local IRBs approved collection of residual blood samples, 1 had previous approval to collect timed blood samples under a separate protocol, and 3 reported that their local IRBs would not approve collection of residual blood under a waiver of consent. CONCLUSION: Waiver of consent was used in PROMMTT because of the potential adverse impact of consent refusals; however, there were no refusals. If the IRB for Site 8 had required withdrawal of patients unable to consent and destruction of their data, a serious bias would likely have been introduced. Other tradeoffs included a reduction in sites participating in residual blood collection and a smaller than expected amount of residual blood collected among sites operating under a waiver of consent. Noninterventional emergency research studies should consider these potential tradeoffs carefully before deciding whether waiver of consent would best achieve the goals of a study.
Authors: Jack V Tu; Donald J Willison; Frank L Silver; Jiming Fang; Janice A Richards; Andreas Laupacis; Moira K Kapral Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John B Holcomb; Deborah J del Junco; Erin E Fox; Charles E Wade; Mitchell J Cohen; Martin A Schreiber; Louis H Alarcon; Yu Bai; Karen J Brasel; Eileen M Bulger; Bryan A Cotton; Nena Matijevic; Peter Muskat; John G Myers; Herb A Phelan; Christopher E White; Jiajie Zhang; Mohammad H Rahbar Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Susan E Rowell; Kelly A Fair; Ronald R Barbosa; Jennifer M Watters; Eileen M Bulger; John B Holcomb; Mitchell J Cohen; Mohammad H Rahbar; Erin E Fox; Martin A Schreiber Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Nena Matijevic; Yao-Wei W Wang; Charles E Wade; John B Holcomb; Bryan A Cotton; Martin A Schreiber; Peter Muskat; Erin E Fox; Deborah J Del Junco; Jessica C Cardenas; Mohammad H Rahbar; Mitchell Jay Cohen Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Sara Jm Laurijssen; Rieke van der Graaf; Wouter B van Dijk; Ewoud Schuit; Rolf Hh Groenwold; Diederick E Grobbee; Martine C de Vries Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 2.599
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Jeffry Nahmias; Areg Grigorian; Scott Brakenridge; Randeep S Jawa; Daniel N Holena; John Varujan Agapian; Brandon Bruns; Paul J Chestovich; Bruce Chung; Jonathan Nguyen; Carl I Schulman; Kristan Staudenmayer; Rachel Dixon; Jason W Smith; Andrew C Bernard; Jose L Pascual Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2018-05-30