A prospective assessment of the medic autologous blood transfusion skills for field transfusion preparation.

BACKGROUND: Data demonstrate the benefit of blood product administration near point-of-injury (POI). Fresh whole blood transfusion from a pre-screened donor provides a source of blood at the POI when resources are constrained. We captured transfusion skills data for medics performing autologous blood transfusion training. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of medics with varying levels of experience. Inexperienced medics were those with minimal or no reported experience learning the autologous transfusion procedures, versus reported experience among special operations medics. When available, medics were debriefed after the procedure for qualitative feedback. We followed them for up to 7 days for adverse events. RESULTS: The median number of attempts for inexperienced and experienced medics was 1 versus 1 (interquartile range 1-1 for both, p = .260). The inexperienced medics had a slower median time to needle venipuncture access for the donation of 7.3 versus 1.5 min, needle removal after clamping time of 0.3 versus 0.2 min, time to bag preparation of 1.9 versus 1.0 min, time to IV access for reinfusion of 6.0 versus 3.0 min, time to transfusion completion of 17.3 versus 11.0 min, and time to IV removal of 0.9 versus 0.3 min (all p < .05). We noted one administrative safety event in which an allogeneic transfusion occurred. No major adverse events occurred. Qualitative data saturated around the need for quarterly training. CONCLUSIONS: Inexperienced medics have longer procedure times when training autologous whole blood transfusion skills. This data will help establish training measures of performance for skills optimization when learning this procedure.

Comparative Analysis of Whole Blood Infusion Effects: Assessing LifeFlow Versus Pressure Bag in a Sus scrofa Model.

BACKGROUND: To improve survival for hemorrhagic shock treatment, guidelines emphasize two patient care priorities: (1) immediate hemorrhage control and (2) early resuscitation with whole blood or blood products. The LifeFlow device is designed to rapidly infuse blood products. However, the effects of using this device compared to pressure-bag systems remain unclear. We hypothesize that there will be no laboratory-measured difference with the blood when infused through the LifeFlow versus the current standard pressure bag system. METHODS: Two units of fresh whole blood were obtained from a sus scrofa model. One unit was "infused" using the LifeFlow with the other unit used as a control through a standard pressure bag system into an empty bag. The "before" measurements were obtained from blood samples from a standard fresh whole blood collection bag. The blood was "infused" into a whole blood bag devoid of storage solution from which the "after" measurements were obtained. RESULTS: This study utilized 22 clinically healthy sus scrofa. Blood units were primarily obtained from a left subclavian central line (50.0%). The median time to acquire and administer a unit of blood was similar for both the LifeFlow device (8.4 min and 8.1 min) and the pressure bag (8.7 min and 7.4 min). No significant differences were found in the total time to acquire or administer blood between the two devices. The median volume of blood acquired was 500 mL for both groups. While no significant differences in blood parameters were observed between the two devices, significant differences were noted when comparing pre- and post-transfusion values within each device. For the LifeFlow device, an increase in hemoglobin and chloride levels and a decrease in thromboplastin time and glucose levels were observed. With the pressure bag, only a decrease in blood urea nitrogen was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In comparing the LifeFlow to the pressure bag, there were no significant differences noted in the total time to acquire or administer a whole unit of blood. However, there were differences with several laboratory parameters of unclear clinical significance.