Departments of *Surgery, †Center for Translational Injury Research, and ‡Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX; and §Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center, Houston, TX.
Ann Surg. 2013 Oct;258(4):527-32; discussion 532-3. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a4ffa0.
To determine whether resuscitation of severely injured patients with modified whole blood (mWB) resulted in fewer overall transfusions compared with component (COMP) therapy.
For decades, whole blood (WB) was the primary product for resuscitating patients in hemorrhagic shock. After dramatic advances in blood banking in the 1970s, blood donor centers began supplying hospitals with individual components [red blood cell (RBC), plasma, platelets] and removed WB as an available product. However, no studies of efficacy or hemostatic potential in trauma patients were performed before doing so.
Single-center, randomized trial of severely injured patients predicted to large transfusion volume. Pregnant patients, prisoners, those younger than 18 years or with more than 20% total body surface area burns (TBSA) burns were excluded. Patients were randomized to mWB (1 U mWB) or COMP therapy (1 U RBC+ 1 U plasma) immediately on arrival. Each group also received 1 U platelets (apheresis or prepooled random donor) for every 6 U of mWB or 6 U of RBC + 6 U plasma. The study was performed under the Exception From Informed Consent (Food and Drug Administration 21 code of federal regulations [CFR] 50.24). Primary outcome was 24-hour transfusion volumes.
A total of 107 patients were randomized (55 mWB, 52 COMP therapy) over 14 months. There were no differences in demographics, arrival vitals or laboratory values, injury severity, or mechanism. Transfusions were similar between groups (intent-to-treat analysis). However, when excluding patients with severe brain injury (sensitivity analysis), WB group received less 24-hour RBC (median 3 vs 6, P = 0.02), plasma (4 vs 6, P = 0.02), platelets (0 vs 3, P = 0.09), and total products (11 vs 16, P = 0.02).
Compared with COMP therapy, WB did not reduce transfusion volumes in severely injured patients predicted to receive massive transfusion. However, in the sensitivity analysis (patients without severe brain injuries), use of mWB significantly reduced transfusion volumes, achieving the prespecified endpoint of this initial pilot study.
确定与成分(COMP)治疗相比,复苏严重受伤患者使用改良全血(mWB)是否导致总输血量减少。
几十年来,全血(WB)一直是治疗出血性休克患者的主要产品。在 20 世纪 70 年代血液银行技术取得重大进展后,血库中心开始向医院提供各种成分[红细胞(RBC)、血浆、血小板],并停止供应 WB。然而,在这样做之前,没有对创伤患者的疗效或止血潜力进行研究。
对预计大量输血的严重受伤患者进行单中心、随机试验。排除孕妇、囚犯、年龄小于 18 岁或全身烧伤面积(TBSA)超过 20%的患者。患者入院时立即随机分为 mWB(1 U mWB)或 COMP 治疗(1 U RBC+1 U 血浆)。每组还接受了每 6 U mWB 或 6 U RBC+6 U 血浆的 1 U 血小板(单采或随机供体预混)。该研究是在《食品和药物管理局 21 号法规(联邦法规[CFR] 50.24)的免责知情同意书》下进行的。主要结局是 24 小时输血量。
在 14 个月内共随机分配了 107 名患者(55 名 mWB,52 名 COMP 治疗)。两组在人口统计学、到达生命体征或实验室值、损伤严重程度或机制方面没有差异。在意向治疗分析中,两组的输血量相似。然而,当排除严重脑损伤患者(敏感性分析)时,WB 组接受的 24 小时 RBC(中位数 3 与 6,P=0.02)、血浆(4 与 6,P=0.02)、血小板(0 与 3,P=0.09)和总产品(11 与 16,P=0.02)较少。
与 COMP 治疗相比,WB 并未减少预计大量输血的严重受伤患者的输血量。然而,在敏感性分析(无严重脑损伤患者)中,使用 mWB 显著减少了输血量,达到了这项初步试点研究的预定终点。