Design and Preliminary Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial on a 1:1:1 Transfusion Strategy: The Trauma Formula-Driven Versus Laboratory-Guided Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retrospective reviews have recently shown an survival benefit for adopting a resuscitation strategy that transfuses plasma and platelets at a near 1:1 ratio with red blood cells (RBCs). However, a randomized controlled trial on the topic is lacking. We report on the design and preliminary results of our ongoing randomized control pilot trial (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00945542). METHODS: This is a 2-year feasibility randomized control trial at a single tertiary trauma center. Bleeding trauma patients were randomized to either a laboratory-driven or a formula-driven (1 plasma:1 platelet:1 RBC) transfusion protocols. Feasibility was assessed by analyzing for ability to enroll patients, appropriate activation of transfusion protocols, time to transfusion of each type of blood product, laboratory turnaround time, ratio of blood products transfused, and wastage of blood products. RESULTS: From July 6, 2009, to May 31, 2010, n = 18 patients were randomized and included in the study. Issues that we noted were the need to do postrandomization exclusions, the need to have rapid and accurate predictors of massive bleeding to enroll patients quickly, and the need to have waived consent for study participation. As well, we noted that the logistics of administering 1:1:1 were formidable and required rapid access to thawed plasma. Similarly, challenges in the control arm of such a study included the turnaround time for obtaining laboratory results. CONCLUSION: Despite major challenges, our initial experience suggests that with an organized system, it is possible to prospectively randomize massively bleeding trauma patients. The accomplishment of high ratios of plasma to RBCs is challenging with current thawing methods and unavailability of thawed plasma in Canada. Longer shelf-life for plasma and faster plasma thawing microwaves should overcome some of these obstacles. For a laboratory-guided transfusion protocol, massive transfusion protocols should be in place with faster turnaround time for coagulation tests. Finally, further research on predictors of massive transfusion is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".