These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: What's in the Box? The Effectiveness of a Low-Volume Massive Transfusion Protocol.
    Author: Baysinger K, Barnett ME, Ott M, Bromberg W, Mcbride K, Thompson L, Goodman G, Shaw E, Dunne J.
    Journal: Am Surg; 2016 Jul; 82(7):602-7. PubMed ID: 27457858.
    Abstract:
    Transfusion ratios approaching 1:1:1 of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) to platelet have been shown to improve outcomes in trauma. There is little data available to describe in what quantity that ratio should be delivered. We hypothesized that lowering the total volume of products delivered in each protocol round would not adversely affect outcomes in the bleeding trauma patient. A retrospective review of 9732 trauma patients admitted to a rural Level I trauma center over a 3-year period was performed. Patients who received a massive transfusion (greater than 10 units of blood product transfused in the first 24 hours), between January 2012 and April 2015 were identified as the study cohort. In May of 2014, our institution switched from a massive transfusion protocol (MTP) that included 6 PRBCs:6 FFP:1 platelet to a lower volume massive transfusion protocol (LVMTP) that included 4 PRBC:4 FFP:1 platelet. Data collected included patient demographics, vital signs, and outcomes. A total of 131 patients met study criteria. MTP was activated on 65 per cent of patients (57/88), receiving a massive transfusion during the 28 months before implementation of the new protocol. In contrast, LVMTP was activated in 100 per cent of patients (43/43) receiving a massive transfusion in the 12 months after implementation of the new protocol. There was no significant difference in age (36.6 vs 37.2, P = 0.87), injury severity score (29.8 vs 32.3, P = 0.45), or per cent penetrating mechanism (43.9 vs 37.2%, P = 0.503) when comparing MTP to LVMTP. In addition, there was no significant difference in mortality (47.4 vs 41.9%, P = 0.584), lengths of stay (13.5 vs 17.1, P = 0.258), or vent days (6.4 vs 8.2, P = 0.236) when comparing MTP to LVMTP. A LVMTP is safe and effective for the resuscitation of the trauma patient.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]