1Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada. 2Department of Surgery, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 3Department of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 4Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 5Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 6CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 7Department of Internal Medicine, Sections of Critical Care and Hematology/Medical Oncology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Crit Care Med. 2013 Dec;41(12):2800-11. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a6ecb.
With the recognition of early coagulopathy, trauma resuscitation has shifted toward liberal platelet transfusions. The overall benefit of this strategy remains controversial. Our objective was to compare the effects of a liberal use of platelet (higher platelet:RBC ratios) with a conservative approach (lower ratios) in trauma resuscitation.
We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Biosis, Cochrane Central, and Scopus.
Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing two or more platelet:RBC ratios in trauma resuscitation. We excluded studies investigating the use of whole blood or hemostatic products.
Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were early (in ICU or within 30 d) and late (in hospital or after 30 d) mortality. Secondary outcomes were multiple organ failure, lung injury, and sepsis.
From 6,123 citations, no randomized controlled trials were identified. We included seven observational studies (4,230 patients) addressing confounders through multivariable regression or propensity scores. Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Among the five studies including exclusively patients requiring massive transfusions, four observed a lower mortality with higher ratios. Two studies considering nonmassively bleeding patients observed no benefit of using higher ratios. Two studies evaluated the implementation of a massive transfusion protocol; only one study observed a decrease in mortality with higher ratios. Of the two studies at low risk of survival bias, one study observed a survival benefit. Three studies assessed secondary outcomes. One study observed an increase in multiple organ failure with higher ratios, whereas no study demonstrated an increased risk in lung injury or sepsis.
There is insufficient evidence to strongly support the use of a precise platelet:RBC ratio for trauma resuscitation, especially in nonmassively bleeding patients. Randomized controlled trials evaluating both the safety and efficacy of liberal platelet transfusions are warranted.
随着对早期凝血功能障碍的认识,创伤复苏已转向更自由的血小板输注。这种策略的整体获益仍存在争议。我们的目的是比较在创伤复苏中更自由地使用血小板(更高的血小板:红细胞比值)与保守方法(更低的比值)的效果。
我们系统地检索了 Medline、Embase、Web of Science、Biosis、Cochrane 中心和 Scopus。
两位独立的审查员选择了比较创伤复苏中两种或多种血小板:红细胞比值的随机对照试验和观察性研究。我们排除了研究使用全血或止血产品的研究。
两位独立的审查员提取了数据并评估了偏倚风险。主要结局是早期(在 ICU 或 30 天内)和晚期(在医院或 30 天后)死亡率。次要结局是多器官衰竭、肺损伤和脓毒症。
从 6123 条引文,未发现随机对照试验。我们纳入了 7 项观察性研究(4230 例患者),通过多变量回归或倾向评分解决混杂因素。研究之间存在异质性,因此无法进行荟萃分析。在包括仅需要大量输血的患者的五项研究中,四项观察到更高的比值与更低的死亡率相关。两项研究考虑了非大量出血患者,观察到使用更高比值没有获益。两项研究评估了大量输血方案的实施;只有一项研究观察到更高比值与死亡率降低相关。在两项生存偏倚风险较低的研究中,有一项研究观察到生存获益。三项研究评估了次要结局。一项研究观察到更高的比值与多器官衰竭增加有关,而没有研究表明肺损伤或脓毒症的风险增加。
没有足够的证据强烈支持在创伤复苏中使用精确的血小板:红细胞比值,特别是在非大量出血患者中。需要进行随机对照试验来评估更自由的血小板输注的安全性和有效性。