院前护理中的全血与血液成分

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Scott Kostolni, Linh Nguyen, Sharon M Long, Iv Godzdanker, David A Wampler, Lawrence H Brown
{"title":"院前护理中的全血与血液成分","authors":"Scott Kostolni, Linh Nguyen, Sharon M Long, Iv Godzdanker, David A Wampler, Lawrence H Brown","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2025.2538741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Whether clinical outcomes differ for hemorrhaging patients receiving prehospital whole blood versus blood component transfusion is unclear. Furthermore, most prehospital transfusion studies are limited to injured patients and commingle interfacility transfers with 9-1-1 scene responses. This study assessed outcomes exclusively among 9-1-1 scene response patients receiving prehospital transfusion with either whole blood or blood components for traumatic and non-traumatic hemorrhage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the ESO Data Collaborative for 2019- 2023, patients 8 to 100 years old who received whole blood or blood components were identified. Interfacility transports, patients receiving blood products prior to EMS arrival, and those with pre-arrival cardiac arrest were excluded. The primary prehospital outcome was change in shock index, along with changes in individual vital signs (Glasgow coma score (GCS), heart rate, systolic blood pressure). The primary hospital outcome was mortality at emergency department (ED) or hospital disposition. We also analyzed adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,990 eligible patients, 1,515 received whole blood and 475 received blood components. There were significant baseline differences between the two groups, with whole blood more frequently used by ground ambulance services, in urban areas and for penetrating trauma. Patients receiving blood components had statistically greater decreases in shock index (median change, -0.3 vs. -0.2, <i>p</i> = 0.040) and heart rate (median change, -7 bpm vs. - 4 bpm, <i>p</i> = 0.007), but there was no significant difference in mortality for patients receiving whole blood vs. blood components after multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline differences (adjusted odds ratio: 1.7, CI: 0.6-4.9). No patients in either group received prehospital epinephrine, and there were no ED diagnoses of transfusion reaction. Three whole blood patients had diagnoses related to thromboembolic events, but these were unlikely to be related to the transfusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this retrospective observational study of 9-1-1 scene response patients with traumatic or non-traumatic hemorrhage, differences between shock index and heart rate for patients receiving whole blood or blood components were of questionable clinical significance, and adjusted mortality did not significantly differ for the two groups. There were no instances of prehospital anaphylaxis or ED transfusion reactions. Both transfusion strategies appear equally effective and safe.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whole Blood Versus Blood Components in Prehospital Care.\",\"authors\":\"Scott Kostolni, Linh Nguyen, Sharon M Long, Iv Godzdanker, David A Wampler, Lawrence H Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10903127.2025.2538741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Whether clinical outcomes differ for hemorrhaging patients receiving prehospital whole blood versus blood component transfusion is unclear. Furthermore, most prehospital transfusion studies are limited to injured patients and commingle interfacility transfers with 9-1-1 scene responses. This study assessed outcomes exclusively among 9-1-1 scene response patients receiving prehospital transfusion with either whole blood or blood components for traumatic and non-traumatic hemorrhage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the ESO Data Collaborative for 2019- 2023, patients 8 to 100 years old who received whole blood or blood components were identified. Interfacility transports, patients receiving blood products prior to EMS arrival, and those with pre-arrival cardiac arrest were excluded. The primary prehospital outcome was change in shock index, along with changes in individual vital signs (Glasgow coma score (GCS), heart rate, systolic blood pressure). The primary hospital outcome was mortality at emergency department (ED) or hospital disposition. We also analyzed adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,990 eligible patients, 1,515 received whole blood and 475 received blood components. There were significant baseline differences between the two groups, with whole blood more frequently used by ground ambulance services, in urban areas and for penetrating trauma. Patients receiving blood components had statistically greater decreases in shock index (median change, -0.3 vs. -0.2, <i>p</i> = 0.040) and heart rate (median change, -7 bpm vs. - 4 bpm, <i>p</i> = 0.007), but there was no significant difference in mortality for patients receiving whole blood vs. blood components after multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline differences (adjusted odds ratio: 1.7, CI: 0.6-4.9). No patients in either group received prehospital epinephrine, and there were no ED diagnoses of transfusion reaction. Three whole blood patients had diagnoses related to thromboembolic events, but these were unlikely to be related to the transfusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this retrospective observational study of 9-1-1 scene response patients with traumatic or non-traumatic hemorrhage, differences between shock index and heart rate for patients receiving whole blood or blood components were of questionable clinical significance, and adjusted mortality did not significantly differ for the two groups. There were no instances of prehospital anaphylaxis or ED transfusion reactions. Both transfusion strategies appear equally effective and safe.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prehospital Emergency Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prehospital Emergency Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2025.2538741\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2025.2538741","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:院前接受全血和血液成分输血的出血患者的临床结果是否不同尚不清楚。此外,大多数院前输血研究仅限于受伤患者和混合设施间转移与911现场反应。本研究专门评估了因创伤性和非创伤性出血而接受院前全血或血液成分输血的911现场反应患者的结果。方法:使用2019- 2023年ESO数据协作系统,识别8至100岁接受全血或血液成分治疗的患者。医院间转运、EMS到达前接受血液制品的患者以及到达前心脏骤停的患者均被排除在外。院前主要结局是休克指数的变化,以及个体生命体征(格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)、心率、收缩压)的变化。主要的医院结局是急诊科(ED)的死亡率或医院处置。我们还分析了不良事件。结果:在1990例符合条件的患者中,1515例接受全血治疗,475例接受血液成分治疗。两组之间有显著的基线差异,全血更常用于地面救护车服务,城市地区和穿透性创伤。接受血液成分治疗的患者在休克指数(变化中位数,-0.3 vs. -0.2, p = 0.040)和心率(变化中位数,- 7bpm vs. - 4bpm, p = 0.007)方面有统计学上更大的下降,但在多变量分析调整基线差异后,接受全血治疗的患者和接受血液成分治疗的患者的死亡率没有显著差异(调整优势比:1.7,CI: 0.6-4.9)。两组患者均未接受院前肾上腺素治疗,且无输血反应的ED诊断。三名全血患者的诊断与血栓栓塞事件有关,但这些不太可能与输血有关。结论:在对创伤性或非创伤性出血的911现场反应患者进行回顾性观察研究中,接受全血或血液成分治疗的患者休克指数和心率的差异具有可疑的临床意义,两组校正死亡率无显著差异。没有院前过敏反应或ED输血反应的实例。两种输血策略似乎同样有效和安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Whole Blood Versus Blood Components in Prehospital Care.

Objectives: Whether clinical outcomes differ for hemorrhaging patients receiving prehospital whole blood versus blood component transfusion is unclear. Furthermore, most prehospital transfusion studies are limited to injured patients and commingle interfacility transfers with 9-1-1 scene responses. This study assessed outcomes exclusively among 9-1-1 scene response patients receiving prehospital transfusion with either whole blood or blood components for traumatic and non-traumatic hemorrhage.

Methods: Using the ESO Data Collaborative for 2019- 2023, patients 8 to 100 years old who received whole blood or blood components were identified. Interfacility transports, patients receiving blood products prior to EMS arrival, and those with pre-arrival cardiac arrest were excluded. The primary prehospital outcome was change in shock index, along with changes in individual vital signs (Glasgow coma score (GCS), heart rate, systolic blood pressure). The primary hospital outcome was mortality at emergency department (ED) or hospital disposition. We also analyzed adverse events.

Results: Of 1,990 eligible patients, 1,515 received whole blood and 475 received blood components. There were significant baseline differences between the two groups, with whole blood more frequently used by ground ambulance services, in urban areas and for penetrating trauma. Patients receiving blood components had statistically greater decreases in shock index (median change, -0.3 vs. -0.2, p = 0.040) and heart rate (median change, -7 bpm vs. - 4 bpm, p = 0.007), but there was no significant difference in mortality for patients receiving whole blood vs. blood components after multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline differences (adjusted odds ratio: 1.7, CI: 0.6-4.9). No patients in either group received prehospital epinephrine, and there were no ED diagnoses of transfusion reaction. Three whole blood patients had diagnoses related to thromboembolic events, but these were unlikely to be related to the transfusion.

Conclusions: In this retrospective observational study of 9-1-1 scene response patients with traumatic or non-traumatic hemorrhage, differences between shock index and heart rate for patients receiving whole blood or blood components were of questionable clinical significance, and adjusted mortality did not significantly differ for the two groups. There were no instances of prehospital anaphylaxis or ED transfusion reactions. Both transfusion strategies appear equally effective and safe.

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
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
×
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