Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: The balanced transfusion of blood components plays a leading role in traumatic hemostatic resuscitation. Yet, previous whole blood studies have only focused on urban trauma center settings. OBJECTIVE: To compare component vs whole blood therapy on wastage rates and mortality in the rural setting. METHODS: This study was a nonrandomized, retrospective, observational, single-center study on a cold-stored whole blood program implementation for adult massive transfusions from 2020 to 2022 at a Level II trauma center. Trauma registry data determined the facility’s whole blood needs and facilitated sustainable blood supplies. Whole blood use protocols were established, and utilization and laboratory compliance for incompatible ABO antibody hemolysis was monitored and reviewed monthly at stakeholder and trauma services meetings. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2019, the facility initiated component therapy massive transfusions every 9 days ( n = 41). Therefore, four units of low-titer, O-positive whole blood delivered fortnightly was determined to provide patient coverage and minimize wastage. Across the study time frame (2020–2022), there were n = 68 hemodynamically unstable patients, consisting of those receiving whole blood, n = 37, and patients receiving component therapy, n = 31. Mortality rates were significantly lower ( p = .030) in the whole blood population ( n = 3, 8%) compared to those solely receiving component therapy ( n = 9, 29%). Wastage rates were constantly evaluated; in 2021, 43.4% was not utilized, and in 2022, this was reduced to 38.7%. Anecdotally, nurses appreciated the ease of administration and documentation of transfusing whole blood, as it negated ratio compliance. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based whole blood program provides vital care to severely injured trauma patients in a vast, rural region.
Orr et al. (Sun,) studied this question.