Effect of a fixed-ratio (1:1:1) transfusion protocol versus laboratory-results–guided transfusion in patients with severe trauma: a randomized feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage coupled with coagulopathy remains the leading cause of preventable in-hospital deaths among trauma patients. Use of a transfusion protocol with a predefined ratio of 1:1:1 (1 each of red blood cells [RBC], frozen plasma [FP] and platelets) has been associated with improved survival in retrospective studies in military and civilian settings, but such a protocol has its challenges and may increase the risk of respiratory complications. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility of a 1:1:1 transfusion protocol and its effect on mortality and complications among patients with severe trauma. METHODS: We included 78 patients seen in a tertiary trauma centre between July 2009 and October 2011 who had hypotension and bleeding and were expected to need massive transfusion (≥ 10 RBC units in 24 h). We randomly assigned them to either the fixed-ratio (1:1:1) transfusion protocol (n = 40) or to a laboratory-results-guided transfusion protocol (control; n = 38). The primary outcome, feasibility, was assessed in terms of blood product ratios and plasma wastage. Safety was measured based on 28-day mortality and survival free of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: Overall, a transfusion ratio of 1:1:1 was achieved in 57% (21/37) of patients in the fixed-ratio group, as compared with 6% (2/32) in the control group. A ratio of 1:1 (RBC:FP) was achieved in 73% (27/37) in the fixed-ratio group and 22% (7/32) in the control group. Plasma wastage was higher with the intervention protocol (22% [86/390] of FP units v. 10% [30/289] in the control group). The 28-day mortality and number of days free of acute respiratory distress syndrome were statistically similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: The fixed-ratio transfusion protocol was feasible in our study, but it was associated with increased plasma wastage. Larger randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of such a protocol in trauma care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00945542.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".