Objective: The aim of this study was to identify a mortality benefit with the use of whole blood (WB) as part of the resuscitation of bleeding trauma patients. Background: Blood component therapy (BCT) is the current standard for resuscitating trauma patients, with WB emerging as the blood product of choice. We hypothesized that the use of WB versus BCT alone would result in decreased mortality. Methods: We performed a 14-center, prospective observational study of trauma patients who received WB versus BCT during their resuscitation. We applied a generalized linear mixed-effects model with a random effect and controlled for age, sex, mechanism of injury (MOI), and injury severity score. All patients who received blood as part of their initial resuscitation were included. Primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, and bleeding complications. Results: A total of 1623 [WB: 1180 (74%), BCT: 443(27%)] patients who sustained penetrating (53%) or blunt (47%) injury were included. Patients who received WB had a higher shock index (0.98 vs 0.83), more comorbidities, and more blunt MOI (all P<0.05). After controlling for center, age, sex, MOI, and injury severity score, we found no differences in the rates of acute kidney injury, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism or pulmonary complications. WB patients were 9% less likely to experience bleeding complications and were 48% less likely to die than BCT patients (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Compared with BCT, the use of WB was associated with a 48% reduction in mortality in trauma patients. Our study supports the use of WB use in the resuscitation of trauma patients.

BACKGROUND Prehospital procedures (PHP) by emergency medical services (EMS) are performed regularly in penetrating trauma patients despite previous studies demonstrating no benefit. We sought to examine the influence of PHPs on outcomes in penetrating trauma patients in urban locations where transport to trauma center is not prolonged. We hypothesized that patients without PHPs would have better outcomes than those undergoing PHP. METHODS This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma–sponsored, multicenter, prospective, observational trial of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. The impact of PHPs and transport mechanism on in-hospital mortality were examined. RESULTS Of 2,284 patients included, 1,386 (60.7%) underwent PHP. The patients were primarily Black (n = 1,527, 66.9%) males (n = 1,986, 87.5%) injured by gunshot wound (n = 1,510, 66.0%) with 34.1% (n = 726) having New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. A total of 1,427 patients (62.5%) were transported by Advanced Life Support EMS, 17.2% (n = 392) by private vehicle, 13.7% (n = 312) by police, and 6.7% (n = 153) by Basic Life Support EMS. Of the PHP patients, 69.1% received PHP on scene, 59.9% received PHP in route, and 29.0% received PHP both on scene and in route. Initial scene vitals differed between groups, but initial emergency department vitals did not. Receipt of ≥1 PHP increased mortality odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.83; p = 0.04). Logistic regression showed increased mortality with each PHP, whether on scene or during transport. Subset analysis of specific PHP revealed that intubation (OR, 10.76; 95% CI, 4.02–28.78; p < 0.001), C-spine immobilization (OR, 5.80; 95% CI, 1.85–18.26; p < 0.01), and pleural decompression (OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.33–10.28; p = 0.01) had the highest odds of mortality after adjusting for multiple variables. CONCLUSION Prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients impart no survival advantage and may be harmful in urban settings, even when performed during transport. Therefore, PHP should be forgone in lieu of immediate transport to improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level III.