Minh Nguyen1, Romain Pirracchio, Lucy Z Kornblith, Rachael Callcut, Erin E Fox, Charles E Wade, Martin Schreiber, John B Holcomb, Jeremy Coyle, Mitchell Cohen, Alan Hubbard. 1. From the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (M.N., J.C., A.H.), School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley; Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care (R.P.), Department of Surgery (L.Z.K., R.C.), School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California; Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery (E.E.F.), Medical School, Center for Translational Injury Research, Department of Surgery (C.E.W., J.B.H.), Center for Translational Injury Research, Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas; Division of Trauma, Critical Care and Acute Care Surgery, School of Medicine (M.S.), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; and Department of Surgery, School of Medicine (M.C.), University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Massive transfusion protocols to treat postinjury hemorrhage are based on predefined blood product transfusion ratios followed by goal-directed transfusion based on patient's clinical evolution. However, it remains unclear how these transfusion ratios impact patient outcomes over time from injury. METHODS: The Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) is a phase 3, randomized controlled trial, across 12 Level I trauma centers in North America. From 2012 to 2013, 680 severely injured patients required massive transfusion. We used semiparametric machine learning techniques and causal inference methods to augment the intent-to-treat analysis of PROPPR, estimating the dynamic relationship between transfusion ratios and outcomes: mortality and hemostasis at different timepoints during the first 24 hours after admission. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the 1:1:1 group tended to have decreased mortality, but with no statistical significance. For patients in whom hemostasis took longer than 2 hours, the 1:1:1 ratio was associated with a higher probability of hemostasis, statistically significant from the 4 hour on. In the per-protocol, actual-transfusion-ratios-received analysis, during four successive time intervals, no significant association was found between the actual ratios and mortality. When comparing patient groups who received both high plasma/PRBC and high platelet/PRBC ratios to the group of low ratios in both, the relative risk of achieving hemostasis was 2.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-5.22) during the third hour after admission, suggesting a significant beneficial impact of higher transfusion ratios of plasma and platelets on hemostasis. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the impact of transfusion ratios on hemostasis is dynamic. Overall, the transfusion ratios had no significant impact on mortality over time. However, receiving higher ratios of platelets and plasma relative to red blood cells hastens hemostasis in subjects who have yet to achieve hemostasis within 3 hours after hospital admission. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
BACKGROUND: Massive transfusion protocols to treat postinjury hemorrhage are based on predefined blood product transfusion ratios followed by goal-directed transfusion based on patient's clinical evolution. However, it remains unclear how these transfusion ratios impact patient outcomes over time from injury. METHODS: The Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) is a phase 3, randomized controlled trial, across 12 Level I trauma centers in North America. From 2012 to 2013, 680 severely injured patients required massive transfusion. We used semiparametric machine learning techniques and causal inference methods to augment the intent-to-treat analysis of PROPPR, estimating the dynamic relationship between transfusion ratios and outcomes: mortality and hemostasis at different timepoints during the first 24 hours after admission. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the 1:1:1 group tended to have decreased mortality, but with no statistical significance. For patients in whom hemostasis took longer than 2 hours, the 1:1:1 ratio was associated with a higher probability of hemostasis, statistically significant from the 4 hour on. In the per-protocol, actual-transfusion-ratios-received analysis, during four successive time intervals, no significant association was found between the actual ratios and mortality. When comparing patient groups who received both high plasma/PRBC and high platelet/PRBC ratios to the group of low ratios in both, the relative risk of achieving hemostasis was 2.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-5.22) during the third hour after admission, suggesting a significant beneficial impact of higher transfusion ratios of plasma and platelets on hemostasis. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the impact of transfusion ratios on hemostasis is dynamic. Overall, the transfusion ratios had no significant impact on mortality over time. However, receiving higher ratios of platelets and plasma relative to red blood cells hastens hemostasis in subjects who have yet to achieve hemostasis within 3 hours after hospital admission. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
Authors: E Bui; K Inaba; A Ebadat; E Karamanos; S Byerly; O Okoye; I Shulman; P Rhee; D Demetriades Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Beth H Shaz; Christopher J Dente; Jeffrey Nicholas; Jana B MacLeod; Andrew N Young; Kirk Easley; Qiang Ling; Robert S Harris; Christopher D Hillyer Journal: Transfusion Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Ernest A Gonzalez; Frederick A Moore; John B Holcomb; Charles C Miller; Rosemary A Kozar; S Rob Todd; Christine S Cocanour; Bjorn C Balldin; Bruce A McKinley Journal: J Trauma Date: 2007-01
Authors: Bryan A Cotton; Neeti Reddy; Quinton M Hatch; Eric LeFebvre; Charles E Wade; Rosemary A Kozar; Brijesh S Gill; Rondel Albarado; Michelle K McNutt; John B Holcomb Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rachael A Callcut; Lucy Z Kornblith; Amanda S Conroy; Anamaria J Robles; Jonathan P Meizoso; Nicholas Namias; David E Meyer; Amanda Haymaker; Michael S Truitt; Vaidehi Agrawal; James M Haan; Kelly L Lightwine; John M Porter; Janika L San Roman; Walter L Biffl; Michael S Hayashi; Michael J Sise; Jayraan Badiee; Gustavo Recinos; Kenji Inaba; Thomas J Schroeppel; Emma Callaghan; Julie A Dunn; Samuel Godin; Robert C McIntyre; Erik D Peltz; Patrick J OʼNeill; Conrad F Diven; Aaron M Scifres; Emily E Switzer; Michaela A West; Sarah Storrs; Daniel C Cullinane; John F Cordova; Ernest E Moore; Hunter B Moore; Alicia R Privette; Evert A Eriksson; Mitchell Jay Cohen Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: John B Holcomb; Charles E Wade; Joel E Michalek; Gary B Chisholm; Lee Ann Zarzabal; Martin A Schreiber; Ernest A Gonzalez; Gregory J Pomper; Jeremy G Perkins; Phillip C Spinella; Kari L Williams; Myung S Park Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Thomas M Scalea; Kelly M Bochicchio; Kim Lumpkins; John R Hess; Richard Dutton; Anne Pyle; Grant V Bochicchio Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Tyler J Loftus; Chasen A Croft; Martin D Rosenthal; Alicia M Mohr; Philip A Efron; Frederick A Moore; Gilbert R Upchurch; R Stephen Smith Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 6.532