Cecily K Vanderspurt1, Philip C Spinella2, Andrew P Cap3, Ronnie Hill4, Sarah A Matthews5, Jason B Corley6, Jennifer M Gurney6,7. 1. Division of Emergency Medicine, Martin Army Community Hospital, Fort Benning, Georgia. 2. Division of Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Joint Trauma System, U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Pathology, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas. 5. Department of Pathology, Madigan Army Medical Center, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. 6. Armed Service Blood Program, Brooke Army Medical Center, JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 7. Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death in military and civilian traumatic injury. Blood product resuscitation improves survival. Low-titer Type O Whole Blood (LTOWB) was recently re-introduced to the combat theater as a universal resuscitation product for hemorrhagic shock. This study assessed the utilization patterns of LTOWB compared to warm fresh whole blood (WFWB) and blood component therapy (CT) in US Military Operations in Iraq/Syria and Afghanistan known as Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS) respectively. We hypothesized LTOWB utilization would increase over time given its advantages. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the Theater Medical Data Store, patients receiving blood products between January 2016 and December 2017 were identified. Product utilization ratios (PUR) for LTOWB, WFWB, and CT were compared across Area of Operations (AORs), medical treatment facilities (Role 2 vs. Role 3), and time. PUR was defined as number of blood products transfused/(number of blood products transfused + number of blood products wasted). RESULTS: The overall PUR for all blood products was 17.4%; the LTOWB PUR was 14.3%. Over the study period, the total number of blood products transfused increased 133%. Although the total whole blood (WB) increased from 2.1% to 6.6% of all products transfused, WFWB use remained at 2% while LTOWB transfusions increased from 0.5% to 4%. Transfusion of LTOWB occurred more in austere Role 2 facilities compared to Role 3 hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: LTOWB transfusion is feasible in austere, far-forward environments. Further investigation is needed regarding the safety, clinical outcomes, and drivers of LTOWB transfusions.
BACKGROUND:Hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death in military and civilian traumatic injury. Blood product resuscitation improves survival. Low-titer Type O Whole Blood (LTOWB) was recently re-introduced to the combat theater as a universal resuscitation product for hemorrhagic shock. This study assessed the utilization patterns of LTOWB compared to warm fresh whole blood (WFWB) and blood component therapy (CT) in US Military Operations in Iraq/Syria and Afghanistan known as Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS) respectively. We hypothesized LTOWB utilization would increase over time given its advantages. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the Theater Medical Data Store, patients receiving blood products between January 2016 and December 2017 were identified. Product utilization ratios (PUR) for LTOWB, WFWB, and CT were compared across Area of Operations (AORs), medical treatment facilities (Role 2 vs. Role 3), and time. PUR was defined as number of blood products transfused/(number of blood products transfused + number of blood products wasted). RESULTS: The overall PUR for all blood products was 17.4%; the LTOWB PUR was 14.3%. Over the study period, the total number of blood products transfused increased 133%. Although the total whole blood (WB) increased from 2.1% to 6.6% of all products transfused, WFWB use remained at 2% while LTOWB transfusions increased from 0.5% to 4%. Transfusion of LTOWB occurred more in austere Role 2 facilities compared to Role 3 hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: LTOWB transfusion is feasible in austere, far-forward environments. Further investigation is needed regarding the safety, clinical outcomes, and drivers of LTOWB transfusions.
Authors: Kasiemobi E Pulliam; Bernadin Joseph; Rosalie A Veile; Lou Ann Friend; Amy T Makley; Charles C Caldwell; Alex B Lentsch; Michael D Goodman; Timothy A Pritts Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Robert Russell; David F Bauer; Susan M Goobie; Thorsten Haas; Marianne E Nellis; Daniel K Nishijima; Adam M Vogel; Jacques Lacroix Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Frank X Guyette; Mazen Zenati; Darrell J Triulzi; Mark H Yazer; Hunter Skroczky; Barbara J Early; Peter W Adams; Joshua B Brown; Louis Alarcon; Matthew D Neal; Raquel M Forsythe; Brian S Zuckerbraun; Andrew B Peitzman; Timothy R Billiar; Jason L Sperry Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: Kasiemobi E Pulliam; Bernadin Joseph; Rosalie A Veile; Lou Ann Friend; Amy T Makley; Charles C Caldwell; Alex B Lentsch; Michael D Goodman; Timothy A Pritts Journal: Shock Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Mark Walsh; Ernest E Moore; Hunter B Moore; Scott Thomas; Hau C Kwaan; Jacob Speybroeck; Mathew Marsee; Connor M Bunch; John Stillson; Anthony V Thomas; Annie Grisoli; John Aversa; Daniel Fulkerson; Stefani Vande Lune; Lucas Sjeklocha; Quincy K Tran Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-01-17 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Ruchika Goel; Xianming Zhu; Sarah Makhani; Molly R Petersen; Cassandra D Josephson; Louis M Katz; Beth H Shaz; Richard Austin; Elizabeth P Crowe; Paul M Ness; Eric A Gehrie; Steven M Frank; Evan M Bloch; Aaron A R Tobian Journal: Transfusion Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.337