Assessing the one‐month mortality impact of civilian‐setting prehospital transfusion: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

BackgroundBased on convincing evidence for outcomes improvement in the military setting, the past decade has seen evaluation of prehospital transfusion (PHT) in the civilian emergency medical services (EMS) setting. Evidence synthesis has been challenging, due to study design variation with respect to both exposure (type of blood product administered) and outcome (endpoint definitions and timing). The goal of the current meta‐analysis was to execute an overarching assessment of all civilian‐arena randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence focusing on administration of blood products compared to control of no blood products.MethodThe review structure followed the Cochrane group's Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA). Using the Transfusion Evidence Library (transfusionevidencelibrary.com), the multidatabase (e.g. PubMed, EMBASE) Harvard On‐Line Library Information System (HOLLIS), and GoogleScholar, we accessed many databases and gray literature sources. RCTs of PHT in the civilian setting with a comparison group receiving no blood products with 1‐month mortality outcomes were identified.ResultsIn assessing a single patient‐centered endpoint—1‐month mortality—we calculated an overall risk ratio (RR) estimate. Analysis of three RCTs yielded a model with acceptable heterogeneity (I2 = 48%, Q‐test p = 0.13). Pooled estimate revealed civilian PHT results in a statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.38) relative mortality reduction of 13% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63–1.19).ConclusionsCurrent evidence does not demonstrate 1‐month mortality benefit of civilian‐setting PHT. This should give pause to EMS systems considering adoption of civilian‐setting PHT programs. Further studies should not only focus on which formulations of blood products might improve outcomes but also focus on which patients are most likely to benefit from any form of civilian‐setting PHT.