Challenging convention: a secondary data analysis of circulation-first versus airway-first triage in trauma patients receiving blood transfusions.

BACKGROUND

Trauma guidelines have historically recommended intubation prior to transfusion, yet intubation and mechanical ventilation can exacerbate hemodynamic instability. We hypothesized that injured patients resuscitated with a circulation-first approach would require fewer blood transfusions and would have lower mortality than those managed with an airway-first approach.

METHODS

This secondary data analysis of the Linking Investigations in Trauma and Emergency Services (LITES) database compared trauma patients in hemorrhagic shock who received blood products and intubation within 30 minutes of each other. 'ABC' patients were intubated first, whereas 'CAB' patients received blood first. A subgroup analysis compared patients with penetrating injuries only. Outcomes included transfusion volume, whole blood (WB) utilization, mortality, and hospital length of stay (HLOS).

RESULTS

35 CAB and 49 ABC patients were included. The ABC group suffered more blunt injuries (73.5% vs 42.9%, p=0.02) and were more likely to receive WB in the prehospital setting (75.5% vs 48.6%, p=0.02). Transfusion requirements were significantly higher in the CAB group (7195 mL vs 6090 mL, p=0.01), although this was not the case after removal of outliers. In the penetrating cohort (17 CAB, 11 ABC), CAB patients were less likely to be transferred directly from the scene (70.6% vs 72.7%), yet were more likely to receive WB in the prehospital setting (64.7% vs 27.3%). There were no differences with respect to mortality or HLOS.

CONCLUSION

When comparing a circulation-first to an airway-first approach to triage in a unique, severely injured cohort of trauma patients, there was no difference detected in transfusion requirements or mortality. Centers participating in LITES more frequently used CAB over ABC for patients with penetrating trauma. The sample size and characteristics of this cohort limit its generalizability and highlight the need for prospective multicenter trials to guide the triage and management of hemorrhagic shock.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prognostic/epidemiological.