Resuscitation with blood products in patients with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock receiving prehospital care (RePHILL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Time to treatment matters in traumatic haemorrhage but the optimal prehospital use of blood in major trauma remains uncertain. We investigated whether use of packed red blood cells (PRBC) and lyophilised plasma (LyoPlas) was superior to use of 0·9% sodium chloride for improving tissue perfusion and reducing mortality in trauma-related haemorrhagic shock. METHODS: Resuscitation with pre-hospital blood products (RePHILL) is a multicentre, allocation concealed, open-label, parallel group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in four civilian prehospital critical care services in the UK. Adults (age ≥16 years) with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock and hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or absence of palpable radial pulse) were assessed for eligibility by prehospital critial care teams. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either up to two units each of PRBC and LyoPlas or up to 1 L of 0·9% sodium chloride administered through the intravenous or intraosseous route. Sealed treatment packs which were identical in external appearance, containing PRBC-LyoPlas or 0·9% sodium chloride were prepared by blood banks and issued to participating sites according to a randomisation schedule prepared by the co-ordinating centre (1:1 ratio, stratified by site). The primary outcome was a composite of episode mortality or impaired lactate clearance, or both, measured in the intention-to-treat population. This study is completed and registered with ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN62326938. FINDINGS: From Nov 29, 2016 to Jan 2, 2021, prehospital critical care teams randomly assigned 432 participants to PRBC-LyoPlas (n=209) or to 0·9% sodium chloride (n=223). Trial recruitment was stopped before it achieved the intended sample size of 490 participants due to disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The median follow-up was 9 days (IQR 1 to 34) for participants in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and 7 days (0 to 31) for people in the 0·9% sodium chloride group. Participants were mostly white (62%) and male (82%), had a median age of 38 years (IQR 26 to 58), and were mostly involved in a road traffic collision (62%) with severe injuries (median injury severity score 36, IQR 25 to 50). Before randomisation, participants had received on average 430 mL crystalloid fluids and tranexamic acid (90%). The composite primary outcome occurred in 128 (64%) of 199 participants randomly assigned to PRBC-LyoPlas and 136 (65%) of 210 randomly assigned to 0·9% sodium chloride (adjusted risk difference -0·025% [95% CI -9·0 to 9·0], p=0·996). The rates of transfusion-related complications in the first 24 h after ED arrival were similar across treatment groups (PRBC-LyoPlas 11 [7%] of 148 compared with 0·9% sodium chloride nine [7%] of 137, adjusted relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·46-2·42]). Serious adverse events included acute respiratory distress syndrome in nine (6%) of 142 patients in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and three (2%) of 130 in 0·9% sodium chloride group, and two other unexpected serious adverse events, one in the PRBC-LyoPlas (cerebral infarct) and one in the 0·9% sodium chloride group (abnormal liver function test). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The trial did not show that prehospital PRBC-LyoPlas resuscitation was superior to 0·9% sodium chloride for adult patients with trauma related haemorrhagic shock. Further research is required to identify the characteristics of patients who might benefit from prehospital transfusion and to identify the optimal outcomes for transfusion trials in major trauma. The decision to commit to routine prehospital transfusion will require careful consideration by all stakeholders. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation.

Ebola virus antibody decay-stimulation in a high proportion of survivors.

Neutralizing antibody function provides a foundation for the efficacy of vaccines and therapies1-3. Here, using a robust in vitro Ebola virus (EBOV) pseudo-particle infection assay and a well-defined set of solid-phase assays, we describe a wide spectrum of antibody responses in a cohort of healthy survivors of the Sierra Leone EBOV outbreak of 2013-2016. Pseudo-particle virus-neutralizing antibodies correlated with total anti-EBOV reactivity and neutralizing antibodies against live EBOV. Variant EBOV glycoproteins (1995 and 2014 strains) were similarly neutralized. During longitudinal follow-up, antibody responses fluctuated in a 'decay-stimulation-decay' pattern that suggests de novo restimulation by EBOV antigens after recovery. A pharmacodynamic model of antibody reactivity identified a decay half-life of 77-100 days and a doubling time of 46-86 days in a high proportion of survivors. The highest antibody reactivity was observed around 200 days after an individual had recovered. The model suggests that EBOV antibody reactivity declines over 0.5-2 years after recovery. In a high proportion of healthy survivors, antibody responses undergo rapid restimulation. Vigilant follow-up of survivors and possible elective de novo antigenic stimulation by vaccine immunization should be considered in order to prevent EBOV viral recrudescence in recovering individuals and thereby to mitigate the potential risk of reseeding an outbreak.

Re-introducing whole blood for transfusion: considerations for blood providers.

Whole blood is the original blood preparation but disappeared from the blood bank inventories in the 1980s following the advent of component therapy. In the early 2000s, both military and civilian practice called for changes in the transfusion support for massive haemorrhage. The 'clear fluid' policy was abandoned and replaced by early balanced transfusion of platelets, plasma and red cells. Whole blood is an attractive alternative to multi-component therapy, which offers reduced hemodilution, lower donor exposure and simplified logistics. However, the potential for wider re-introduction of whole blood requires re-evaluation of haemolysins, storage conditions and shelf-life, the need for leucocyte depletion/ pathogen reduction and inventory management for blood providers. This review addresses these questions and calls for research to define the optimal whole blood product and the indications for its use.

Deployed skills training for whole blood collection by a special operations expeditionary surgical team.

BACKGROUND: Noncompressible hemorrhage is the leading cause of potentially preventable battlefield death. Combining casualty retrieval from the battlefield and damage control resuscitation (DCR) within the "golden hour" increases survival. However, transfusion requirements may exceed the current blood component stocks held by forward surgical teams. Warm fresh whole blood (WFWB) is an alternative. We report WFWB transfusion training developed by and delivered to a US Golden Hour Offset Surgical Treatment Team and the resulting improvement in confidence with WFWB transfusion. METHODS: A bespoke instructional package was derived from existing operational clinical guidelines. All Golden Hour Offset Surgical Treatment Team personnel completed initial training, reinforced through ongoing casualty simulations. A record of blood types and donor eligibility was established to facilitate rapid identification of potential WFWB donors. Self-reported confidence in seven aspects of the WFWB transfusion process was assessed before and after training using a five-point Likert scale. Personnel were analyzed by groups consisting of those whose operational role includes WFWB transfusion ("transfusers"), clinical personnel without such responsibilities ("nontransfusers") and nonclinical personnel (other). Comparisons within and between groups were made using appropriate nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Data were collected from 39 (89%) of 44 training participants: 24 (62%) transfusers, 12 (31%) nontransfusing clinicians, and 3 (8%) other personnel. Transfusers and nontransfusers reported increased comfort with all practical elements of WFWB transfusion. The confidence of other personnel also increased, but (likely due to small numbers) was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: WFWB transfusion is an integral part of modern deployed military remote DCR. Our in-theater training program rapidly and reproducibly enhanced the comfort in WFWB transfusion in providers from a range of backgrounds and skill-mixes. This model has the potential to improve both safety and effectiveness of WFWB remote DCR in the far-forward deployed setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Low titer group O whole blood in emergency situations.

In past and ongoing military conflicts, the use of whole blood (WB) as a resuscitative product to treat trauma-induced shock and coagulopathy has been widely accepted as an alternative when availability of a balanced component-based transfusion strategy is restricted or lacking. In previous military conflicts, ABO group O blood from donors with low titers of anti-A/B blood group antibodies was favored. Now, several policies demand the exclusive use of ABO group-specific WB. In this short review, we argue that the overall risks, dangers, and consequences of "the ABO group-specific approach," in emergencies, make the use of universal group O WB from donors with low titers of anti-A/B safer. Generally, risks with ABO group-specific transfusions are associated with in vivo destruction of the red blood cells transfused. The risk with group O WB is from the plasma transfused to ABO-incompatible patients. In the civilian setting, the risk of clinical hemolytic transfusion reactions (HTRs) due to ABO group-specific red blood cell transfusions is relatively low (approximately 1:80,000), but the consequences are frequently severe. Civilian risk of HTRs due to plasma incompatible transfusions, using titered donors, is approximately 1:120,000 but usually of mild to moderate severity. Emergency settings are often chaotic and resource limited, factors well known to increase the potential for human errors. Using ABO group-specific WB in emergencies may delay treatment because of needed ABO typing, increase the risk of clinical HTRs, and increase the severity of these reactions as well as increase the danger of underresuscitation due to lack of some ABO groups. When the clinical decision has been made to transfuse WB in patients with life-threatening hemorrhagic shock, we recommend the use of group O WB from donors with low anti-A/B titers when logistical constraints preclude the rapid availability of ABO group-specific WB and reliable group matching between donor and recipient is not feasible.