Levy Matthew J, Jenkins Donald H, Guyette Frances X, Holcomb John B
Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2025 May 24;10(2):e001828. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2025-001828. eCollection 2025.
Life-threatening hemorrhage remains a leading cause of preventable trauma-related mortality. Prehospital blood product administration has shown promise in improving outcomes; however, widespread implementation of whole blood programs faces significant logistical and operational challenges. Plasma represents a practical alternative that warrants thorough examination. Contemporary evidence, specifically the landmark PAMPer trial and secondary analysis of the COMBAT trial, demonstrates that prehospital plasma administration reduces 30-day mortality by 9.8% in trauma patients at risk of hemorrhagic shock, particularly when transport times exceed 20 minute. Plasma's efficacy stems from a reduction in trauma-induced coagulopathy and endothelial glycocalyx damage. While liquid plasma has a limited shelf life, dried plasma offers extended storage capability at room temperature for up to 2 years, presenting a logistically favorable option for emergency medical service (EMS) systems. Costs vary significantly between formulations, ranging from US$40 to US$100 for liquid plasma to US$700 to US$1500 for dried plasma. However, consideration must be given to the short shelf-life of liquid plasma. Prehospital plasma, particularly dried plasma, represents an important advancement in trauma management and represents a viable alternative to crystalloid-only resuscitation where whole blood may not be available or feasible. Implementation success depends on regional deployment strategies, blood bank partnerships, funding, training, and community engagement. Future research should focus on optimizing plasma utilization and improving patient outcomes through clinical and implementation-science approaches for EMS systems for which whole blood may not be an option.
危及生命的出血仍然是可预防的创伤相关死亡的主要原因。院前血液制品的输注在改善预后方面已显示出前景;然而,全血项目的广泛实施面临着重大的后勤和操作挑战。血浆是一种值得深入研究的切实可行的替代方案。当代证据,特别是具有里程碑意义的PAMPer试验和COMBAT试验的二次分析表明,对于有出血性休克风险的创伤患者,院前输注血浆可将30天死亡率降低9.8%,尤其是在转运时间超过20分钟时。血浆的疗效源于创伤诱导的凝血病和内皮糖萼损伤的减少。虽然液体血浆的保质期有限,但冻干血浆在室温下可延长储存长达2年,这为紧急医疗服务(EMS)系统提供了一个后勤上有利的选择。不同制剂的成本差异很大,液体血浆从40美元到100美元不等,冻干血浆从700美元到1500美元不等。然而,必须考虑液体血浆的保质期短的问题。院前血浆,特别是冻干血浆,是创伤管理的一项重要进展,并且在无法获得或不可行使用全血的情况下,是仅用晶体液复苏的可行替代方案。实施的成功取决于区域部署策略、血库合作、资金、培训和社区参与。未来的研究应侧重于通过临床和实施科学方法优化血浆利用并改善EMS系统的患者预后,对于这些系统而言,全血可能不是一个选择。