| Literature DB >> 33470606 |
James Williams1,2, Michael Gustafson3, Yu Bai4,5, Samuel Prater5,6, Charles E Wade1,2, Oscar D Guillamondegui7, Mansoor Khan8, Megan Brenner9, Paula Ferrada10, Derek Roberts11, Tal Horer12, David Kauvar13, Andrew Kirkpatrick14,15,16, Carlos Ordonez17, Bruno Perreira18, Artai Priouzram19, Juan Duchesne20, Bryan A Cotton1,2,6.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Exsanguination remains a leading cause of preventable death in traumatically injured patients. To better treat hemorrhagic shock, hospitals have adopted massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) which accelerate the delivery of blood products to patients. There has been an increase in mass casualty events (MCE) worldwide over the past two decades. These events can overwhelm a responding hospital's supply of blood products. Using a computerized model, this study investigated the ability of US trauma centers (TCs) to meet the blood product requirements of MCEs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33470606 PMCID: PMC8601667 DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001719
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Shock ISSN: 1073-2322 Impact factor: 3.454
Model assumptions
| 1. MCE generated by an explosion in an urban setting. |
| 2. Event occurs during normal working hours, with the hospital fully staffed. |
| 3. There are no other concurrent casualty responses occurring at the time of the MCE. |
| 4. Trauma center is in a state of readiness and is able to respond to the MCE. |
| 5. Once triaged, patient's priority status is not changed. |
| 6. Only P1 and P2 patients require blood products. |
| 7. P3 patients were transported to another facility and not treated at the level 1 trauma center. |
| 8. All P1 and P2 casualties who require blood products have a predetermined blood product requirement that does not change with respect to time. |
| 9. There is adequate staff to transport blood samples to blood bank. |
| 10. No limitations in transporting blood products from blood bank to patients. |
| 11. There is no resupply of blood products. |
| 12. All casualties are between the ages of 15–85. |
Fig. 1Schematic of discrete event simulation. P1 indicates priority 1; P2, priority 2; IV, intravenous; MTP, massive transfusion protocol; Tx, treatment; UCM, universal cross-matched product.
Number of type specific blood products at responding US level-1 trauma centers.
| Median | IQR | ||
| RBCs | O+ | 104 | (84–200) |
| O− | 40 | (25–70) | |
| A+ | 70 | (50–115) | |
| A− | 20 | (20–28) | |
| B+ | 20 | (15–30) | |
| B− | 5 | (2–8) | |
| AB+ | 2 | (0–6) | |
| AB− | 1 | (0–4) | |
| Plasma | O | 50 | (40–90) |
| A | 62 | (54–130) | |
| B | 40 | (30–60) | |
| AB | 44 | (35–90) | |
| Platelets | 12 | (5–25) |
Fig. 2Percentage of successful model runs across all 16 trauma centers when 20% of admitted patients require blood products and 6% require massive transfusion, excluding platelets.
Fig. 3Percentage of successful model runs across all 16 trauma centers when 20% of admitted patients require blood products and 6% require massive transfusion, including platelets.
Fig. 4Percentage of successful model runs across all 16 trauma centers when 40% of admitted patients require blood products and 10% require massive transfusion, excluding platelets.
Fig. 5Percentage of successful model runs across all 16 trauma centers when 40% of admitted patients require blood products and 10% require massive transfusion, including platelets.
Fig. 6Ratio of type O+ and O− red blood cells to type A and AB plasma. RBCs indicates red blood cells.