Fibrinolysis in Trauma: "Myth," "Reality," or "Something in Between"

The emphasis on fibrinolysis as an important contributor to trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) has led to a debate regarding the relative clinical significance of fibrinolysis in the setting of trauma. The debate has centered on two camps. The one camp defines fibrinolysis in trauma by standard coagulation tests as well as fibrin split products, D-dimers, and plasmin/antiplasmin levels. This camp favors a more liberal use of tranexamic acid and attributes more significance to hyperfibrinolysis in TIC. The other camp favors a definition of fibrinolysis based on the viscoelastic tests (VET), rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), and thromboelastography (TEG). These whole blood assays define hyperfibrinolysis at a higher threshold than plasma-based tests. Therefore, this VET camp reserves antifibrinolytic treatment for patients who demonstrate severe coagulopathy associated with hyperfibrinolysis. This bimodal attribution of the clinical relevance of fibrinolysis in trauma suggests that there may be an underlying Myth of the concept of TIC that was historically defined by plasma-based tests and a future Reality of the concept of TIC that is grounded on an understanding of TIC based on a VET-defined fibrinolytic spectrum of TIC. This narrative review explores this Myth and Reality of fibrinolysis in TIC and proposes a direction that will allow a Future interpretation of TIC that incorporates both the past Myth and present Reality of fibrinolysis TIC.