创伤患者超量输血的回顾性研究:是否有一个价值之后,额外的输血是徒劳的?

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Frank R Major, Trevor A Pickering, Kristen Stefanescu, Mandeep Singh, Damon H Clark, Kenji Inaba, Jeffry T Nahmias, Erika L Tay-Lasso, Claudia Alvarez, Joy L Chen, Farzin Ahmed, Olga Y Kaslow, Jeffrey L Tong, Jianzhou Xiao, Elizabeth Hall, Rania Elkhateb, Youssef Bahgat, Danielle Tatum, John T Simpson, Siddharth Singh, Norma J Klein, Richard L Applegate, Catherine M Kuza
{"title":"创伤患者超量输血的回顾性研究:是否有一个价值之后,额外的输血是徒劳的?","authors":"Frank R Major, Trevor A Pickering, Kristen Stefanescu, Mandeep Singh, Damon H Clark, Kenji Inaba, Jeffry T Nahmias, Erika L Tay-Lasso, Claudia Alvarez, Joy L Chen, Farzin Ahmed, Olga Y Kaslow, Jeffrey L Tong, Jianzhou Xiao, Elizabeth Hall, Rania Elkhateb, Youssef Bahgat, Danielle Tatum, John T Simpson, Siddharth Singh, Norma J Klein, Richard L Applegate, Catherine M Kuza","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable mortality in trauma. During times of blood shortages, it may be prudent to consider a transfusion threshold during massive transfusion after which additional transfusions are futile due to nonsurvivability. The main objective of this study is to examine outcomes associated with ultramassive transfusion (UMT; defined as ≥20 units of red blood cells [RBC] within 24 hours) and determine if there is a threshold beyond which additional transfusion efforts should cease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective (2016-2022) analysis of adult trauma patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent surgery and received blood products within 24 hours of admission at 7 US Level I trauma centers. We compared patients who received UMT and patients who received <20 units RBC and evaluated the effects of various amounts of blood products on mortality, length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV), and complications. Segmented logistic regression analysis was performed to determine if there is a \"plateau\" effect of increasing RBC units on mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3248 patients included, 2913 (89.7%) received <20 RBC units within 24 hours, and 333 (10.3%) received ≥20 RBC units within 24 hours. Patients receiving UMT had increased 24-hour mortality (risk ratio [RR] 6.00, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.79-7.52, P < .001) and index hospitalization mortality (RR 3.99 [3.34-4.75], P < .001). These patients also more often developed complications (RR 1.67 [1.44-1.94], P < .001) and multiple organ failure (RR 2.78 [2.20-3.52], P < .001). Compared to those receiving 20 to 29 RBC units, those receiving 30 to 44 RBC units had statistically similar associated risk of death (RR 1.32 [0.93-1.87], P = .12); however, those receiving ≥45 RBC units had an increased associated risk of death (RR 1.59, [1.12-2.25], P = .009), and additional transfusion beyond this point did not improve the probability of survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, patients who received UMT had higher mortality and worse outcomes than those who received fewer units. However, this study did not identify a threshold beyond which all patients died and therefore cannot justify implementing a limit on the number of RBC units transfused based on these data alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Retrospective Study of Ultramassive Transfusion in Trauma Patients: Is There a Value After Which Additional Transfusions Are Futile?\",\"authors\":\"Frank R Major, Trevor A Pickering, Kristen Stefanescu, Mandeep Singh, Damon H Clark, Kenji Inaba, Jeffry T Nahmias, Erika L Tay-Lasso, Claudia Alvarez, Joy L Chen, Farzin Ahmed, Olga Y Kaslow, Jeffrey L Tong, Jianzhou Xiao, Elizabeth Hall, Rania Elkhateb, Youssef Bahgat, Danielle Tatum, John T Simpson, Siddharth Singh, Norma J Klein, Richard L Applegate, Catherine M Kuza\",\"doi\":\"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007569\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable mortality in trauma. During times of blood shortages, it may be prudent to consider a transfusion threshold during massive transfusion after which additional transfusions are futile due to nonsurvivability. The main objective of this study is to examine outcomes associated with ultramassive transfusion (UMT; defined as ≥20 units of red blood cells [RBC] within 24 hours) and determine if there is a threshold beyond which additional transfusion efforts should cease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective (2016-2022) analysis of adult trauma patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent surgery and received blood products within 24 hours of admission at 7 US Level I trauma centers. We compared patients who received UMT and patients who received <20 units RBC and evaluated the effects of various amounts of blood products on mortality, length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV), and complications. Segmented logistic regression analysis was performed to determine if there is a \\\"plateau\\\" effect of increasing RBC units on mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3248 patients included, 2913 (89.7%) received <20 RBC units within 24 hours, and 333 (10.3%) received ≥20 RBC units within 24 hours. Patients receiving UMT had increased 24-hour mortality (risk ratio [RR] 6.00, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.79-7.52, P < .001) and index hospitalization mortality (RR 3.99 [3.34-4.75], P < .001). These patients also more often developed complications (RR 1.67 [1.44-1.94], P < .001) and multiple organ failure (RR 2.78 [2.20-3.52], P < .001). Compared to those receiving 20 to 29 RBC units, those receiving 30 to 44 RBC units had statistically similar associated risk of death (RR 1.32 [0.93-1.87], P = .12); however, those receiving ≥45 RBC units had an increased associated risk of death (RR 1.59, [1.12-2.25], P = .009), and additional transfusion beyond this point did not improve the probability of survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, patients who received UMT had higher mortality and worse outcomes than those who received fewer units. However, this study did not identify a threshold beyond which all patients died and therefore cannot justify implementing a limit on the number of RBC units transfused based on these data alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and analgesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007569\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007569","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:出血是创伤中可预防死亡的主要原因。在血液短缺时期,在大量输血时考虑一个输血阈值可能是谨慎的,超过这个阈值后,由于无法存活,额外的输血是徒劳的。本研究的主要目的是检查与超量输血(UMT;定义为24小时内红细胞≥20单位(RBC),并确定是否存在一个阈值,超过该阈值应停止额外输血。方法:我们对在7个美国一级创伤中心接受手术并在入院24小时内接受血液制品的成人创伤患者(≥18岁)进行了回顾性(2016-2022)分析。我们比较了接受UMT的患者和接受UMT的患者结果:在纳入的3248例患者中,2913例(89.7%)接受了UMT。结论:在本研究中,接受UMT的患者比接受较少单位的患者死亡率更高,预后更差。然而,这项研究没有确定一个阈值,超过这个阈值所有患者都会死亡,因此不能仅仅根据这些数据来证明限制输血红细胞单位数是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Retrospective Study of Ultramassive Transfusion in Trauma Patients: Is There a Value After Which Additional Transfusions Are Futile?

Background: Hemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable mortality in trauma. During times of blood shortages, it may be prudent to consider a transfusion threshold during massive transfusion after which additional transfusions are futile due to nonsurvivability. The main objective of this study is to examine outcomes associated with ultramassive transfusion (UMT; defined as ≥20 units of red blood cells [RBC] within 24 hours) and determine if there is a threshold beyond which additional transfusion efforts should cease.

Methods: We performed a retrospective (2016-2022) analysis of adult trauma patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent surgery and received blood products within 24 hours of admission at 7 US Level I trauma centers. We compared patients who received UMT and patients who received <20 units RBC and evaluated the effects of various amounts of blood products on mortality, length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV), and complications. Segmented logistic regression analysis was performed to determine if there is a "plateau" effect of increasing RBC units on mortality.

Results: Of 3248 patients included, 2913 (89.7%) received <20 RBC units within 24 hours, and 333 (10.3%) received ≥20 RBC units within 24 hours. Patients receiving UMT had increased 24-hour mortality (risk ratio [RR] 6.00, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.79-7.52, P < .001) and index hospitalization mortality (RR 3.99 [3.34-4.75], P < .001). These patients also more often developed complications (RR 1.67 [1.44-1.94], P < .001) and multiple organ failure (RR 2.78 [2.20-3.52], P < .001). Compared to those receiving 20 to 29 RBC units, those receiving 30 to 44 RBC units had statistically similar associated risk of death (RR 1.32 [0.93-1.87], P = .12); however, those receiving ≥45 RBC units had an increased associated risk of death (RR 1.59, [1.12-2.25], P = .009), and additional transfusion beyond this point did not improve the probability of survival.

Conclusions: In this study, patients who received UMT had higher mortality and worse outcomes than those who received fewer units. However, this study did not identify a threshold beyond which all patients died and therefore cannot justify implementing a limit on the number of RBC units transfused based on these data alone.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信