Evidence Hub

Association between whole blood ratio and risk of mortality in massively transfused trauma patients: retrospective cohort study

Makoto Aoki, T. Abe, A. Komori, Morihiro Katsura, K. Matsushima

Critical Care, 2024

4,087 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

Although whole blood (WB) transfusion was reported to improve survival in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock, little is known whether a higher proportion of WB is associated with an improved survival. This study aimed to evaluate the association between whole blood ratio (WBR) and the risk of mortality in trauma patients requiring massive blood transfusion. We performed a retrospective cohort study from the ACS-TQIP between 2020 and 2021. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years and received WB within 4 h of hospital arrival as a part of massive blood transfusion. Study patients were categorized into four groups based on the quartiles of WBR. Primary outcome was 24-h mortality and secondary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, fitted with generalized estimating equations, was performed to adjust for confounding factors and accounted for within-hospital clustering. A total of 4087 patients were eligible for analysis. The median age was 37 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 27–53 years), and 85.0% of patients were male. The median number of WB transfusions was 2.3 units (IQR 2.0–4.0 units), and the total transfusion volume was 4940 ml (IQR 3350–8504). When compared to the lowest WBR quartile, the highest WBR quartile had lower adjusted 24-h mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46–0.81) and 30-day mortality (AOR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45–0.75). The probability of mortality consistently decreased with higher WBR in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,087 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free