Defining ultra-massive transfusion through a systematic review - 22/02/24
, Neal Mody Bailey d
, Sharon L. Leslie e
, Kenya Thrasher a, f
, Zach Grady a, b
, M. Sanders g
, Erica Moore g
, K.W. Nicely g
, Randi N. Smith a, b, c 
Abstract |
Background |
Despite the widespread use of ultra-massive transfusion (UMT) as an intervention for trauma patients in hemorrhagic shock, no standard definition exists. We performed a systematic review to determine a consensus definition for UMT.
Methods |
A search was performed from 1979 to 2022. The authors screened studies defining UMT and associated outcomes as defined by our prespecified PICO questions. The PRISMA guidelines were used.
Results |
1662 articles met criteria for eligibility assessment, 17 for full-text review and eight for data extraction. Only two studies demonstrated a consensus definition of UMT, which used ≥20 units of red blood cell product within 24hrs. Parameters associated with increased mortality included lower blood pressure, lower pulse and lower Glasgow Coma Score at the time of presentation and a higher injury severity score and undergoing a resuscitative thoracotomy.
Conclusions |
The absence of a consensus definition for UMT raises challenges from clinical, research and ethical perspectives. Based on our findings, the authors advocate for the feasibility of standardizing the definition of UMT as ≥20 units of red blood cell product within 24hrs.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Blood transfusion, Ultra-massive, Trauma patient, Consensus definition, Systematic review
Plan
Vol 228
P. 192-198 - février 2024 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
