Fresh whole blood: A feasible alternative in disasters and mass casualty incidents? a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Alba Ripoll-Gallardo, Marta Caviglia, Matteo Ratti, Daniele Ceriotti, Grazia Meneghetti, Luca Pigozzi, Maria Brönstad, Luca Ragazzoni, Francesco Barone-Adesi
{"title":"Fresh whole blood: A feasible alternative in disasters and mass casualty incidents? a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Alba Ripoll-Gallardo, Marta Caviglia, Matteo Ratti, Daniele Ceriotti, Grazia Meneghetti, Luca Pigozzi, Maria Brönstad, Luca Ragazzoni, Francesco Barone-Adesi","doi":"10.1186/s13031-024-00635-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>While balanced blood component therapy (BCT) is pivotal in trauma patient damage control resuscitation in well-resourced settings, disasters, and mass casualty incidents (MCIs) pose significant challenges, especially in securing sufficient access to blood products. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to explore the utilization of fresh whole blood (FWB) transfusion as a potential alternative to BCT, informing future research and clinical strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and grey literature for articles identifying FWB transfusions, limited to those published in English or French. We evaluated the outcomes of post-FWB transfusion and conducted a meta-analysis comparing overall mortality in patients receiving FWB in addition to BCT during damage control resuscitation with those receiving BCT or single blood components alone.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 4830 studies identified, only 74 articles met all the eligibility criteria; the majority of them were conducted in military contexts. Mortality was lower among the FWB group compared to the BCT alone group, with a pooled OR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.38-0.98) overall, and a pooled OR of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25-0.87) among studies adjusting for confounders. FWB transfusion related complications rarely occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While FWB shows potential as an alternative to BCT for managing severe haemorrhagic shock in disasters and MCIs, additional research is essential to validate FWB's efficacy before considering it as a standard approach in civilian scenarios. Further studies focusing on the feasibility of implementing FWB in civilian contexts are also warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":54287,"journal":{"name":"Conflict and Health","volume":"18 1","pages":"74"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11656982/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conflict and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-024-00635-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: While balanced blood component therapy (BCT) is pivotal in trauma patient damage control resuscitation in well-resourced settings, disasters, and mass casualty incidents (MCIs) pose significant challenges, especially in securing sufficient access to blood products. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to explore the utilization of fresh whole blood (FWB) transfusion as a potential alternative to BCT, informing future research and clinical strategies.

Methods: We searched Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and grey literature for articles identifying FWB transfusions, limited to those published in English or French. We evaluated the outcomes of post-FWB transfusion and conducted a meta-analysis comparing overall mortality in patients receiving FWB in addition to BCT during damage control resuscitation with those receiving BCT or single blood components alone.

Results: Of the 4830 studies identified, only 74 articles met all the eligibility criteria; the majority of them were conducted in military contexts. Mortality was lower among the FWB group compared to the BCT alone group, with a pooled OR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.38-0.98) overall, and a pooled OR of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25-0.87) among studies adjusting for confounders. FWB transfusion related complications rarely occurred.

Conclusions: While FWB shows potential as an alternative to BCT for managing severe haemorrhagic shock in disasters and MCIs, additional research is essential to validate FWB's efficacy before considering it as a standard approach in civilian scenarios. Further studies focusing on the feasibility of implementing FWB in civilian contexts are also warranted.

新鲜全血:灾难和大规模伤亡事件的可行选择?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介:虽然平衡血液成分疗法(BCT)在资源充足的环境中对创伤患者损伤控制复苏至关重要,但灾害和大规模伤亡事件(MCIs)构成了重大挑战,特别是在确保足够的血液制品获取方面。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在探讨新鲜全血(FWB)输血作为BCT的潜在替代方案,为未来的研究和临床策略提供信息。方法:我们检索Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane图书馆和灰色文献,以确定FWB输血的文章,仅限于用英语或法语发表的文章。我们评估了FWB输血后的结果,并进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了在损伤控制复苏期间接受FWB和BCT的患者与接受BCT或单一血液成分的患者的总死亡率。结果:纳入的4830篇研究中,只有74篇符合所有入选标准;其中大多数是在军事背景下进行的。与单独的BCT组相比,FWB组的死亡率较低,总的合并OR为0.61 (95% CI: 0.38-0.98),校正混杂因素后的合并OR为0.47 (95% CI: 0.25-0.87)。FWB输血相关并发症很少发生。结论:虽然FWB在灾害和mci中显示出作为BCT治疗严重出血性休克的替代方案的潜力,但在考虑将FWB作为民用方案的标准方法之前,还需要进一步的研究来验证其有效性。还需要进一步研究在民用情况下执行FWB的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conflict and Health
Conflict and Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
57
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Conflict and Health is a highly-accessed, open access journal providing a global platform to disseminate insightful and impactful studies documenting the public health impacts and responses related to armed conflict, humanitarian crises, and forced migration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信