Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA.
J Am Coll Surg. 2021 Apr;232(4):433-442. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.12.006. Epub 2020 Dec 19.
Early close ratio transfusion with balanced component therapy (BCT) has been associated with improved outcomes in patients with severe hemorrhage; however, this modality is not comparable with whole blood (WB) constituents. We compared use of BCT vs WB to determine if one yielded superior outcomes in patients with severe hemorrhage. We hypothesized that WB would lead to reduced in-hospital mortality and blood product volume if given in the first 24 hours of admission.
This was a 1-year, single institution, prospective, observational study comparing BCT with WB in adult (18+y) trauma patients with active hemorrhage who required blood transfusion upon arrival at the emergency department. Primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included 24-hour transfusion volumes, in-hospital clinical outcomes, and complications.
A total of 253 patients were included; 71.1% received BCT and 29.9% WB. The WB cohort had significantly more penetrating trauma (64.4% vs 48.9%; p = 0.03) and higher Shock Index (1.12 vs 0.92; p = 0.04). WB patients received significantly fewer units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) (p < 0.001) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (p = 0.04), with a lower incidence of ARDS (p = 0.03) and fewer ventilator days (p = 0.03). Kaplan Meier survival analysis revealed no difference in survival between the 2 transfusion strategies (p = 0.80). When adjusted for various markers of injury severity and critical illness in Cox regression analysis, WB remained unassociated with mortality (hazard ratio 1.25; 95% CI 0.60-2.58; p = 0.55).
There was no difference in survival rates when comparing BCT with WB. In the WB group, the incidence of ARDS, duration of mechanical ventilation, massive transfusion protocol (MTP) activation, and transfusion volumes were significantly reduced. Further research should be directed at analyzing whether there is a true hemorrhage-related pathophysiologic benefit of WB when compared with BCT.
早期的平衡成分输血(BCT)与严重出血患者的改善结果相关;然而,这种方法与全血(WB)成分不可比。我们比较了 BCT 与 WB 的使用,以确定在严重出血患者中哪一种方法能产生更好的结果。我们假设,如果在入院的前 24 小时内给予 WB,将降低住院死亡率和血液制品的用量。
这是一项为期 1 年的单机构前瞻性观察性研究,比较了 BCT 与 WB 在需要输血的成人(18 岁及以上)创伤患者中的应用,这些患者在到达急诊科时存在活动性出血。主要终点是住院死亡率。次要终点包括 24 小时输血量、住院临床结果和并发症。
共纳入 253 例患者;71.1%接受 BCT,29.9%接受 WB。WB 组有显著更多的穿透性创伤(64.4%比 48.9%;p=0.03)和更高的休克指数(1.12 比 0.92;p=0.04)。WB 组患者接受的单位浓缩红细胞(PRBCs)(p<0.001)和新鲜冷冻血浆(FFP)(p=0.04)明显减少,ARDS 的发生率较低(p=0.03),呼吸机使用天数较少(p=0.03)。Kaplan-Meier 生存分析显示两种输血策略之间的生存率无差异(p=0.80)。在 Cox 回归分析中,当调整各种损伤严重程度和危重病的标志物后,WB 与死亡率无关(风险比 1.25;95%置信区间 0.60-2.58;p=0.55)。
在比较 BCT 与 WB 时,生存率无差异。在 WB 组中,ARDS 的发生率、机械通气时间、大量输血方案(MTP)激活和输血量明显减少。进一步的研究应该分析与 BCT 相比,WB 是否具有真正的与出血相关的病理生理益处。