Annals of surgery · 2013
A randomized controlled pilot trial of modified whole blood versus component therapy in severely injured patients requiring large volume transfusions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cotton Bryan A, Podbielski Jeanette, Camp Elizabeth, Welch Timothy, del Junco Deborah, Bai Yu, Hobbs Rhonda, Scroggins Jamie, Hartwell Beth, Kozar Rosemary A, Wade Charles E, Holcomb John B, Early Whole Blood Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether resuscitation of severely injured patients with modified whole blood (mWB) resulted in fewer overall transfusions compared with component (COMP) therapy.
BACKGROUND: For decades, whole blood (WB) was the primary product for resuscitating patients in hemorrhagic shock. After dramatic advances in blood banking in the 1970s, blood donor centers began supplying hospitals with individual components [red blood cell (RBC), plasma, platelets] and removed WB as an available product. However, no studies of efficacy or hemostatic potential in trauma patients were performed before doing so.
METHODS: Single-center, randomized trial of severely injured patients predicted to large transfusion volume. Pregnant patients, prisoners, those younger than 18 years or with more than 20% total body surface area burns (TBSA) burns were excluded. Patients were randomized to mWB (1 U mWB) or COMP therapy (1 U RBC+ 1 U plasma) immediately on arrival. Each group also received 1 U platelets (apheresis or prepooled random donor) for every 6 U of mWB or 6 U of RBC + 6 U plasma. The study was performed under the Exception From Informed Consent (Food and Drug Administration 21 code of federal regulations [CFR] 50.24). Primary outcome was 24-hour transfusion volumes.
RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were randomized (55 mWB, 52 COMP therapy) over 14 months. There were no differences in demographics, arrival vitals or laboratory values, injury severity, or mechanism. Transfusions were similar between groups (intent-to-treat analysis). However, when excluding patients with severe brain injury (sensitivity analysis), WB group received less 24-hour RBC (median 3 vs 6, P = 0.02), plasma (4 vs 6, P = 0.02), platelets (0 vs 3, P = 0.09), and total products (11 vs 16, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with COMP therapy, WB did not reduce transfusion volumes in severely injured patients predicted to receive massive transfusion. However, in the sensitivity analysis (patients without severe brain injuries), use of mWB significantly reduced transfusion volumes, achieving the prespecified endpoint of this initial pilot study.
BACKGROUND: For decades, whole blood (WB) was the primary product for resuscitating patients in hemorrhagic shock. After dramatic advances in blood banking in the 1970s, blood donor centers began supplying hospitals with individual components [red blood cell (RBC), plasma, platelets] and removed WB as an available product. However, no studies of efficacy or hemostatic potential in trauma patients were performed before doing so.
METHODS: Single-center, randomized trial of severely injured patients predicted to large transfusion volume. Pregnant patients, prisoners, those younger than 18 years or with more than 20% total body surface area burns (TBSA) burns were excluded. Patients were randomized to mWB (1 U mWB) or COMP therapy (1 U RBC+ 1 U plasma) immediately on arrival. Each group also received 1 U platelets (apheresis or prepooled random donor) for every 6 U of mWB or 6 U of RBC + 6 U plasma. The study was performed under the Exception From Informed Consent (Food and Drug Administration 21 code of federal regulations [CFR] 50.24). Primary outcome was 24-hour transfusion volumes.
RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were randomized (55 mWB, 52 COMP therapy) over 14 months. There were no differences in demographics, arrival vitals or laboratory values, injury severity, or mechanism. Transfusions were similar between groups (intent-to-treat analysis). However, when excluding patients with severe brain injury (sensitivity analysis), WB group received less 24-hour RBC (median 3 vs 6, P = 0.02), plasma (4 vs 6, P = 0.02), platelets (0 vs 3, P = 0.09), and total products (11 vs 16, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with COMP therapy, WB did not reduce transfusion volumes in severely injured patients predicted to receive massive transfusion. However, in the sensitivity analysis (patients without severe brain injuries), use of mWB significantly reduced transfusion volumes, achieving the prespecified endpoint of this initial pilot study.