Type-specific whole blood still has a role in the era of low titer O universal donor transfusion for severe trauma hemorrhage.

ABSTRACT: Whole blood can be ABO-type specific (TSWB) or Low-Titer O universal donor (LTOWB). Having previously used LTOWB, the US Armed Forces Blood Program began using TSWB in 1965 as a method of increasing the donor pool. In contrast to military practice, the AABB (Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies), from its first guidelines in 1958 until 2018, permitted only TSWB. Attempting to reduce time to transfusion, the US military reintroduced LTOWB in the deployed environment in 2015; this practice was endorsed by the AABB in 2018 and is progressively being implemented by military and civilian providers worldwide. LTOWB is the only practical solution prehospital. However, there are several reasons to retain the option of TSWB in hospitals with a laboratory. These include 1. as-yet ill-defined risks of immunological complications from ABO-incompatible plasma (even when this has low titres of anti A and B); 2. risks of high volumes of LTOWB including published historical advice (based on clinical experience) not to transfuse type-specific blood for 2-3 weeks following a substantial LTOWB transfusion; 3. uncertainty as to the optimal definition of "low titre"; and 4. expanding the potential donor pool by allowing type-specific transfusion. Several large randomised controlled trials currently underway are comparing LTOWB to component therapy, but none address the question of LTOWB vs. TSWB. There is sufficient data to suggest the additional risks of transfusing LTOWB to non-group O recipients should be avoided by using TSWB as soon as possible. Combined with the advantage of maintaining an adequate supply of blood products in times of high demand, this suggests retaining TSWB within the civilian and military blood supply system is desirable. TSWB should be preferred when patient blood group is confirmed in facilities with a hematology laboratory, with LTOWB reserved for patients whose blood group is unknown.

Effect of level of sedation on outcomes in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review of clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Background: Sedation is routinely administered to critically ill patients to alleviate anxiety, discomfort, and patient-ventilator asynchrony. However, it must be balanced against risks such as delirium and prolonged intensive care stays. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different levels of sedation in critically ill adults. Methods: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials including critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Web of Science were searched from their inception to 13 June 2023. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Aggregate data were synthesised with meta-analyses and TSA, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023386960. Findings: Fifteen trials randomising 4352 patients were included, of which 13 were assessed high risk of bias. Meta-analyses comparing lighter to deeper sedation showed no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.06; p = 0.28; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.99, CI 0.92-1.06; p = 0.80; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), or delirium (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.09; p = 0.78; 11 trials; moderate certainty evidence). TSA showed that when assessing mortality, a relative risk reduction of 16% or more between the compared interventions could be rejected. Interpretation: The level of sedation has not been shown to affect the risks of death, delirium, and other serious adverse events in critically ill adult patients. While TSA suggests that additional trials are unlikely to significantly change the conclusion of the meta-analyses, the certainty of evidence was moderate. This suggests a need for future high-quality studies with higher methodological rigor. Funding: None.

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B trial): protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03653832.

Transforming research to improve therapies for trauma in the twenty-first century.

Improvements have been made in optimizing initial care of trauma patients, both in prehospital systems as well as in the emergency department, and these have also favorably affected longer term outcomes. However, as specific treatments for bleeding are largely lacking, many patients continue to die from hemorrhage. Also, major knowledge gaps remain on the impact of tissue injury on the host immune and coagulation response, which hampers the development of interventions to treat or prevent organ failure, thrombosis, infections or other complications of trauma. Thereby, trauma remains a challenge for intensivists. This review describes the most pressing research questions in trauma, as well as new approaches to trauma research, with the aim to bring improved therapies to the bedside within the twenty-first century.

Patient blood management guideline for adults with critical bleeding.

INTRODUCTION: The management of patients with critical bleeding requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve haemostasis, optimise physiology, and guide blood component use. The 2011 Patient blood management guidelines: module 1 - critical bleeding/massive transfusion were updated and published. Systematic reviews were conducted for pre-specified research questions, and recommendations were based on meta-analyses of included studies. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The critical bleeding/massive transfusion guideline includes seven recommendations and 11 good practice statements addressing: major haemorrhage protocols (MHPs) facilitating a multidisciplinary approach to haemorrhage control, correction of coagulopathy and normalisation of physiological derangement; measurement of physiological, biochemical and metabolic parameters in critical bleeding/massive transfusion; the optimal ratio of red blood cells to other blood components; the use of tranexamic acid; viscoelastic haemostatic assays; and cell salvage. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The new guideline recommends MHPs be established as standard of care in all institutions managing patients with critical bleeding. In addition to routine physiological markers, the new guideline recommends temperature, biochemistry and coagulation profiles be measured early and frequently, providing parameters that define critical derangements. Ratio-based MHPs should include no fewer than four units of fresh frozen plasma and one adult unit of platelets for every eight units of red blood cells. In the setting of trauma and obstetric haemorrhage, administration of tranexamic acid within three hours of bleeding onset is recommended. The use of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) is not recommended. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations on the use of viscoelastic haemostatic assays or cell salvage as part of MHPs.

Transfusion practices in intensive care units: An Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study.

Objective: To describe current transfusion practices in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand, compare them against national guidelines, and describe how viscoelastic haemostatic assays (VHAs) are used in guiding transfusion decisions. Design setting and participants: Prospective, multicentre, binational point-prevalence study. All adult patients admitted to participating ICUs on a single day in 2021. Main outcome measures: Transfusion types, amounts, clinical reasons, and triggers; use of anti-platelet medications, anti-coagulation, and VHA. Results: Of 712 adult patients in 51 ICUs, 71 (10%) patients received a transfusion during the 24hr period of observation. Compared to patients not transfused, these patients had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (19 versus 17, p = 0.02), a greater proportion were mechanically ventilated (49.3% versus 37.3%, p < 0.05), and more had systemic inflammatory response syndrome (70.4% versus 51.3%, p < 0.01). Overall, 63 (8.8%) patients received red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, 10 (1.4%) patients received platelet transfusions, 6 (0.8%) patients received fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and 5 (0.7%) patients received cryoprecipitate. VHA was available in 42 (82.4%) sites but only used in 6.6% of transfusion episodes when available. Alignment with guidelines was found for 98.6% of RBC transfusions, but only 61.6% for platelet, 28.6% for FFP, and 20% for cryoprecipitate transfusions. Conclusions: Non-RBC transfusion decisions are often not aligned with guidelines and VHA is commonly available but rarely used to guide transfusions. Better evidence to guide transfusions in ICUs is needed.