4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Transfusion of Cryopreserved Packed Red Blood Cells Is Safe and Effective After Trauma A Prospective Randomized Trial

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 262, 期 3, 页码 426-433

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001404

关键词

cryopreserved packed red blood cells; hemorrhage; packed red blood cells; tissue oxygenation; trauma

类别

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [1 UL1 RR024140 01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the safety and efficacy of cryopreserved packed red blood cell (CPRBC) transfusion in trauma patients. Background: Liquid packed red blood cells (LPRBCs) have an abbreviated shelf-life and worsening storage lesion with age. CPRBCs are frozen 2 to 6 days after donation, stored up to 10 years, and are available for 14 days after thawing and washing. CPRBCs can be utilized in diverse settings, but the effect on clinical outcomes is unknown. Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind study at 5 level 1 trauma centers. Stable trauma patients requiring transfusion were randomized to young LPRBCs (<= 14 storage days), old LPRBCs (>14 storage days), or CPRBCs. Tissue oxygenation (StO(2)), biochemical and inflammatory mediators were measured, and clinical outcomes were determined. Results: Two hundred fifty-six patients with well-matched injury severity and demographics (P > 0.2) were randomized (84 young, 86 old, and 86 CPRBCs). Pretransfusion and final hematocrits were similar (P > 0.68). Patients in all groups received the same number of units postrandomization (2 [1-4]; P > 0.05). There was no difference in the change in tissue oxygenation between groups. CPRBCs contained less alpha(2)-macrogobulin, haptoglobin, C-reactive protein, and serum amyloid P (P < 0.001). Organ failure, infection rate, and mortality did not differ between groups (P > 0.2). Conclusions: Transfusion of CPRBCs is as safe and effective as transfusion of young and old LPRBCs and provides a mechanism to deliver PRBCs in a wide variety of settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据