Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2018
Hemorrhage remains the major cause of preventable death after trauma. Recent data suggest that earlier blood product administration may improve outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether opportunities exist for blood product transfusion by ground Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
This was a single EMS agency retrospective study of ground and helicopter responses from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015 for adult trauma patients transported from the scene of injury who met predetermined hemodynamic (HD) parameters for potential transfusion (heart rate [HR]≥120 and/or systolic blood pressure [SBP]≤90).
A total of 7,900 scene trauma ground transports occurred during the study period. Of 420 patients meeting HD criteria for transfusion, 53 (12.6%) had a significant mechanism of injury (MOI). Outcome data were available for 51 patients; 17 received blood products during their emergency department (ED) resuscitation. The percentage of patients receiving blood products based upon HD criteria ranged from 1.0% (HR) to 5.9% (SBP) to 38.1% (HR+SBP). In all, 74 Helicopter EMS (HEMS) transports met HD criteria for blood transfusion, of which, 28 patients received prehospital blood transfusion. Statistically significant total patient care time differences were noted for both the HR and the SBP cohorts, with HEMS having longer time intervals; no statistically significant difference in mean total patient care time was noted in the HR+SBP cohort.
In this study population, HD parameters alone did not predict need for ED blood product administration. Despite longer transport times, only one-third of HEMS patients meeting HD criteria for blood administration received prehospital transfusion. While one-third of ground Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport patients manifesting HD compromise received blood products in the ED, this represented 0.2% of total trauma transports over the study period. Given complex logistical issues involved in prehospital blood product administration, opportunities for ground administration appear limited within the described system.
Conflicts of interest: The authors report no conflict of interests. Portions of this manuscript were presented at the 20th World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine Congress on Disaster and Emergency Medicine; Toronto, Ontario; April 2017.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.