Whole blood resuscitation for injured patients requiring transfusion: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Whole blood (WB) resuscitation has reemerged as a resuscitation strategy for injured patients. However, the effect of WB-based resuscitation on outcomes has not been established. The primary objective of this guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations on whether WB should be considered in civilian trauma patients receiving blood transfusions. METHODS: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma working group performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. One Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes question was developed to analyze the effect of WB resuscitation in the acute phase on mortality, transfusion requirements, infectious complications, and intensive care unit length of stay. English language studies including adult civilian trauma patients comparing in-hospital WB to component therapy were included. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science were queried. GRADEpro (McMaster University; Evidence Prime, Inc.; Ontario) was used to assess quality of evidence and risk of bias. The study was registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023451143). RESULTS: A total of 21 studies were included. Most patients were severely injured and required blood transfusion, massive transfusion protocol activation, and/or a hemorrhage control procedure in the early phase of resuscitation. Mortality was assessed separately at the following intervals: early (i.e., emergency department, 3 hours, or 6 hours), 24 hours, late (i.e., 28 days or 30 days), and in-hospital. On meta-analysis, WB was not associated with decreased mortality. Whole blood was associated with decreased 4-hour red blood cell (mean difference, -1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.12 to -0.52), 4-hour plasma (mean difference, -1.47; 95% CI, -2.94 to 0), and 24-hour red blood cell transfusions (mean difference, -1.22; 95% CI, -2.24 to -0.19) compared with component therapy. There were no differences in infectious complications or intensive care unit length of stay between groups. CONCLUSION: We conditionally recommend WB resuscitation in adult civilian trauma patients receiving blood transfusions, recognizing that data are limited for certain populations, including women of childbearing age, and therefore this guideline may not apply to these populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis; Level III.
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 | 0.031 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".