Prehospital Plasma Transfusion: What Does the Literature Show?

Prehospital Trauma Compendium: Transfusion of Blood Products in Trauma - A Position Statement and Resource Document of NAEMSP

Hemorrhagic shock remains the leading cause of potentially preventable death among injured patients with life-threatening bleeding. Prehospital resuscitation has been evolving with increasing use of blood product resuscitation. The impact of blood administration on patient outcomes remains poorly defined with significant heterogeneity in the quality of literature supporting prehospital blood product resuscitation after trauma. We completed a structured search of the literature using a rapid review framework based on three distinct PICO questions to develop systematic and consensus recommendations.

The National Association of Emergency Medical Services Physicians (NAEMSP) recommends, in EMS agencies/systems that can support a high-quality prehospital blood transfusion program:Use of blood components over crystalloids for the first-line treatment of patients with traumatic life-threatening bleeding in the prehospital phase of resuscitationUse of low titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) as the first-choice blood product for treatment of patients with traumatic life-threatening bleeding in the prehospital phase of resuscitationUse of a combination or composite of prehospital transfusion indications, focused on physiologic abnormalities and/or injury patterns with obvious significant blood loss.Use of active monitoring for transfusion-related adverse events.Developing a mechanism to recycle unused blood product units nearing their expiration date to a high-use hospital facility to minimize wastage.Engaging in a comprehensive longitudinal active collaboration between EMS agencies, trauma centers, and blood suppliers to ensure the success of a prehospital transfusion program.

Prehospital Blood Administration in Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock

Following the military's advancement of prehospital blood into the field, civilian prehospital blood programs are becoming more prevalent. However, there are significant differences between civilian and military prehospital operations that should be considered. Civilian prehospital systems also vary widely in terms of resources, transport times, and patient types. Given these variations and the logistical challenges associated with establishing a prehospital blood program, careful consideration of the state of the science is warranted. Although blood is the preferred fluid for patients in hemorrhagic shock, there have only been a few high-quality studies that have examined the efficacy of administering blood in the prehospital setting. Given the conflicting results of these studies, individual medical directors must determine whether the risk-benefit analysis for their system warrants establishing such a resource-intensive operation. Efforts to establish a prehospital blood program should not supersede attempts to optimize the fundamental components of trauma operations and management.

High-dimensional analysis of injured patients reveals distinct circulating proteomic profiles in plasma vs. whole blood resuscitation

Early blood product resuscitation is often essential for optimal trauma care. However, the effects of different products on the underlying trauma-induced coagulopathy and immune dysfunction are not well described. Here, we use high-dimensional analysis and causal modeling in a longitudinal study to explore the circulating proteomic response to plasma as a distinct component versus low-titer O whole blood (LTOWB), which contains plasma. We highlight the differential impacts of plasma and LTOWB on immune mediator levels and the distinct capacity of plasma to modulate coagulation by elevating fibrinogen and factor XIII and reducing platelet factor 4. A higher proportion of plasma in prehospital resuscitation is associated with improved admission time coagulation parameters in patients with severe shock and elevated brain injury markers and reduced post-admission transfusion volumes in those suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI) and blunt injury. While LTOWB offers broad hemostatic benefits, our findings demonstrate specific advantages of plasma and support individualized transfusion strategies.

Advances in trauma care to save lives from traumatic injury: A narrative review

ABSTRACT

Recent advances on trauma management from the prehospital setting to in hospital care led to a better surviving severe trauma rate. Mortality from exsanguination remains the first preventable mortality. Damage-control resuscitation and surgery are evolving and thus some promising concepts are developing. Transfusion toolkit is brought on the prehospital scene while temporary bridge to hemostasis may be helpful. Panel transfusion products allow an individualized ratio assumed by fresh frozen or lyophilized plasma, fresh or cold-stored whole blood, fibrinogen, four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates. Growing interest is raising in whole blood transfusion, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta use, hybrid emergency room, viscoelastic hemostatic assays to improve patient outcomes. Microcirculation, traumatic endotheliopathy, organ failures and secondary immunosuppression are point out since late deaths are increasing and may deserve specific treatment.As each trauma patient follows his own course over the following days after trauma, trauma management may be seen through successive, temporal, and individualized aims.

Development of a national out-of-hospital transfusion protocol: a modified RAND Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Early resuscitation with blood components or products is emerging as best practice in selected patients with trauma and medical patients; as a result, out-of-hospital transfusion (OHT) programs are being developed based on limited and often conflicting evidence. This study aimed to provide guidance to Canadian critical care transport organizations on the development of OHT protocols.

METHODS

The study period was July 2021 to June 2022. We used a modified RAND Delphi process to achieve consensus on statements created by the study team guiding various aspects of OHT in the context of critical care transport. Purposive sampling ensured representative distribution of participants in regard to geography and relevant clinical specialties. We conducted 2 written survey Delphi rounds, followed by a virtual panel discussion (round 3). Consensus was defined as a median score of at least 6 on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ("Definitely should not include") to 7 ("Definitely should include"). Statements that did not achieve consensus in the first 2 rounds were discussed and voted on during the panel discussion.

RESULTS

Seventeen subject experts participated in the study, all of whom completed the 3 Delphi rounds. After the study process was completed, a total of 39 statements were agreed on, covering the following domains: general oversight and clinical governance, storage and transport of blood components and products, initiation of OHT, types of blood components and products, delivery and monitoring of OHT, indications for and use of hemostatic adjuncts, and resuscitation targets of OHT.

INTERPRETATION

This expert consensus document provides guidance on OHT best practices. The consensus statements should support efficient and safe OHT in national and international critical care transport programs.

Management of Hemorrhagic Shock: Physiology Approach, Timing and Strategies

Hemorrhagic shock (HS) management is based on a timely, rapid, definitive source control of bleeding/s and on blood loss replacement. Stopping the hemorrhage from progressing from any named and visible vessel is the main stem fundamental praxis of efficacy and effectiveness and an essential, obligatory, life-saving step. Blood loss replacement serves the purpose of preventing ischemia/reperfusion toxemia and optimizing tissue oxygenation and microcirculation dynamics. The "physiological classification of HS" dictates the timely management and suits the 'titrated hypotensive resuscitation' tactics and the 'damage control surgery' strategy. In any hypotensive but not yet critical shock, the body's response to a fluid load test determines the cut-off point between compensation and progression between the time for adopting conservative treatment and preparing for surgery or rushing to the theater for rapid bleeding source control. Up to 20% of the total blood volume is given to refill the unstressed venous return volume. In any critical level of shock where, ab initio, the patient manifests signs indicating critical physiology and impending cardiac arrest or cardiovascular accident, the balance between the life-saving reflexes stretched to the maximum and the insufficient distal perfusion (blood, oxygen, and substrates) remains in a liable and delicate equilibrium, susceptible to any minimal change or interfering variable. In a cardiac arrest by exsanguination, the core of the physiological issue remains the rapid restoration of a sufficient venous return, allowing the heart to pump it back into systemic circulation either by open massage via sternotomy or anterolateral thoracotomy or spontaneously after aorta clamping in the chest or in the abdomen at the epigastrium under extracorporeal resuscitation and induced hypothermia. This is the only way to prevent ischemic damage to the brain and the heart. This is accomplishable rapidly and efficiently only by a direct approach, which is a crush laparotomy if the bleeding is coming from an abdominal +/- lower limb site or rapid sternotomy/anterolateral thoracotomy if the bleeding is coming from a chest +/- upper limbs site. Without first stopping the bleeding and refilling the heart, any further exercise is doomed to failure. Direct source control via laparotomy/thoracotomy, with the concomitant or soon following venous refilling, are the two essential, initial life-saving steps.