BACKGROUND: Recently, concern has been raised that the use of massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) in nontrauma (ie, general medical/surgical [GMS]) patients might be inefficient due to protocol overactivation (activation in patients who do not ultimately receive massive transfusion). The current study was designed to investigate whether an MTP could be used effectively in GMS patients without detrimentally impacting resource allocation. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis was performed using institutional blood bank records from 2011. Trauma and GMS patients who had ≥10 U packed RBC issued to them in a single release were identified and categorized into MTP and no MTP (nMTP) cohorts. RESULTS: The protocol was overactivated in 53.8% of GMS patients. Activation of the MTP accelerated the delivery of component products for all patients. In GMS MTP patients, fresh frozen plasma units were issued a median of 7 minutes earlier than in GMS nMTP patients (MTP: median 1.0 minute; interquartile range [IQR] 0.0 to 2.0 minutes vs nMTP: median 8.0 minutes; IQR 0.0 to 37.5 minutes; p = 0.009), and platelet units were issued 17 minutes earlier (MTP: median 7.0 minutes; IQR 0.0 to 15.0 minutes vs nMTP: median 24.0 minutes; IQR 9.0 to 96.0 minutes; p = 0.010). In GMS MTP patients, there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of platelet units wasted (MTP 12.8% vs nMTP 8.1%; p = 0.046). This increase was also seen in trauma MTP patients (MTP 12.2% vs nMTP 4.0%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding that our MTP is overactivated in GMS patients, we could identify no unique disadvantages to its use with respect to resource allocation. In fact, a potential advantage to MTP activation exists, as products are issued more quickly with less variability. Our findings of increased platelet waste were not unique to GMS patients and should be used as a metric for quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: Recently, concern has been raised that the use of massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) in nontrauma (ie, general medical/surgical [GMS]) patients might be inefficient due to protocol overactivation (activation in patients who do not ultimately receive massive transfusion). The current study was designed to investigate whether an MTP could be used effectively in GMSpatients without detrimentally impacting resource allocation. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis was performed using institutional blood bank records from 2011. Trauma and GMSpatients who had ≥10 U packed RBC issued to them in a single release were identified and categorized into MTP and no MTP (nMTP) cohorts. RESULTS: The protocol was overactivated in 53.8% of GMSpatients. Activation of the MTP accelerated the delivery of component products for all patients. In GMSMTPpatients, fresh frozen plasma units were issued a median of 7 minutes earlier than in GMSnMTPpatients (MTP: median 1.0 minute; interquartile range [IQR] 0.0 to 2.0 minutes vs nMTP: median 8.0 minutes; IQR 0.0 to 37.5 minutes; p = 0.009), and platelet units were issued 17 minutes earlier (MTP: median 7.0 minutes; IQR 0.0 to 15.0 minutes vs nMTP: median 24.0 minutes; IQR 9.0 to 96.0 minutes; p = 0.010). In GMSMTPpatients, there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of platelet units wasted (MTP 12.8% vs nMTP 8.1%; p = 0.046). This increase was also seen in trauma MTPpatients (MTP 12.2% vs nMTP 4.0%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding that our MTP is overactivated in GMSpatients, we could identify no unique disadvantages to its use with respect to resource allocation. In fact, a potential advantage to MTP activation exists, as products are issued more quickly with less variability. Our findings of increased platelet waste were not unique to GMSpatients and should be used as a metric for quality improvement.
Authors: Matthew J Pommerening; Michael D Goodman; John B Holcomb; Charles E Wade; Erin E Fox; Deborah J Del Junco; Karen J Brasel; Eileen M Bulger; Mitch J Cohen; Louis H Alarcon; Martin A Schreiber; John G Myers; Herb A Phelan; Peter Muskat; Mohammad Rahbar; Bryan A Cotton Journal: Injury Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Lauren M McDaniel; Darrell J Triulzi; James Cramer; Brian S Zuckerbraun; Jason L Sperry; Andrew B Peitzman; Jay S Raval; Matthew D Neal Journal: J Blood Transfus Date: 2014-09-10
Authors: Matthew A Warner; Ryan D Frank; Timothy J Weister; Nageswar R Madde; Ognjen Gajic; Daryl J Kor Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 6.627
Authors: Luke J Matzek; Emil B Kurian; Ryan D Frank; Timothy J Weister; Ognjen Gajic; Daryl J Kor; Matthew A Warner Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 2.996
Authors: Santiago R Leal-Noval; Manuel Casado; Victoria Arellano-Orden; Reginald Dusseck; Javier Bautista-Paloma; Manuel Muñoz; José Naranjo-Izorieta; Antonio Puppo Moreno; Aurelio Cayuela Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Kirsten Balvers; Michiel Coppens; Susan van Dieren; Ingeborg H M van Rooyen-Schreurs; Henriëtte J Klinkspoor; Sacha S Zeerleder; Holger M Baumann; J Carel Goslings; Nicole P Juffermans Journal: J Emerg Trauma Shock Date: 2015 Oct-Dec
Authors: James J Case; Nasreen Khan; Michael Delrahim; Jasmina Dizdarevic; Dane J Nichols; Martin A Schreiber; Thomas G Deloughery; Akram Khan Journal: Indian J Crit Care Med Date: 2017-08