Suppr超能文献

荷兰的大量输血。

Massive transfusion in The Netherlands.

作者信息

Rijnhout Tim W H, Noorman Femke, Bek Annemarije, Zoodsma Margreet, Hoencamp Rigo

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Alrijne Hospital Leiderdorp, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands

Trauma Research Unit Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Emerg Med J. 2020 Feb;37(2):65-72. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2019-208665. Epub 2019 Dec 12.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) may improve survival in patients with uncontrolled haemorrhage. An MTP was introduced into the Dutch transfusion guidelines in 2011, the ninth edition of the advanced trauma life support course in 2012 and the third version of the European guideline in 2013. This is the first survey of MTPs in Dutch trauma centres.

METHODS

The aim of the study was to compare MTP strategies in level 1 trauma centres in The Netherlands, and with (inter)national guidelines. A contact in each government assigned level 1 trauma centre in The Netherlands and the Dutch Ministry of Defence was approached to share their MTPs and elucidate their protocol in a survey and oral follow-up interview.

RESULTS

All 11 level 1 trauma centres responded. The content of the packages and transfusion ratios (red blood cells/plasma/platelets) were 3:3:1, 5:5:1, 5:3:1, 2:3:1, 4:4:1, 5:2:1, 2:2:1 and 4:3:1. Tranexamic acid was used in all centres and an additional dose was administered in eight centres. Fibrinogen was given directly (n=4), with persistent bleeding (n=3), based on Clauss fibrinogen (n=3) or rotational thromboelastometry (n=1). All centres used additional medication in patients in the form of anticoagulants, but their use was ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

MTPs differed between institutes and guidelines. The discrepancies in transfusion ratios can be explained by (inter)national differences in preparation and volume of blood components and/or interpretation of the '1:1:1' guideline. We recommend updating MTPs every year using the latest guidelines and evaluating the level of evidence for treatment during massive transfusion.

摘要

目的

大量输血方案(MTPs)可能会提高出血无法控制患者的生存率。2011年,MTP被纳入荷兰输血指南;2012年,被纳入高级创伤生命支持课程第九版;2013年,被纳入欧洲指南第三版。这是荷兰创伤中心对MTPs的首次调查。

方法

本研究旨在比较荷兰一级创伤中心的MTP策略,并与(国际)指南进行对比。研究人员联系了荷兰各政府指定的一级创伤中心以及荷兰国防部的相关人员,以便在一项调查和后续口头访谈中分享他们的MTPs并阐明其方案。

结果

所有11家一级创伤中心均作出回应。各方案包的内容及输血比例(红细胞/血浆/血小板)分别为3:3:1、5:5:1、5:3:1、2:3:1、4:4:1、5:2:1、2:2:1和4:3:1。所有中心均使用了氨甲环酸,其中8个中心给予了额外剂量。纤维蛋白原给药方式为:直接给药(n = 4)、持续出血时给药(n = 3)、基于Clauss纤维蛋白原水平给药(n = 3)或基于旋转血栓弹力图给药(n = 1)。所有中心都以抗凝剂的形式对患者使用了额外药物,但其使用情况并不明确。

结论

各机构之间的MTPs以及与指南之间存在差异。输血比例的差异可由血液成分制备和体积的(国际)差异和/或对“1:1:1”指南的解读差异来解释。我们建议每年根据最新指南更新MTPs,并评估大量输血期间治疗的证据水平。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验