Category Archives: Resuscitation

What’s The Difference? Liquid Plasma vs FFP

April 18, 2023 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Plasma is an important component of any trauma center’s massive transfusion protocol (MTP). Coagulopathy is the enemy of any seriously injured patient, and this product is used to attempt to fix that problem.

And now there are two flavors available: liquid plasma and fresh frozen plasma. But there is often confusion when discussing these products, especially when there are really three flavors! Let’s review what they are exactly, how they are similar, and how they differ.

Fresh frozen plasma (FFP)
This is plasma that is separated from donated whole blood. It is generally frozen within 8 hours, and is called FFP. However, in some cases it may not be frozen for a few more hours (not to exceed 24 hours total) and in that case, is called FP24 or FP. It is functionally identical to FFP. But note that the first “F” is missing. Since it has gone beyond the 8 hour mark, it is no longer considered “fresh.” To be useful in your MTP, it must be thawed, and this takes 20-40 minutes, depending on technique.

Thawed plasma
Take a frozen unit of FFP or FP, thaw, and keep it in the refrigerator. Readily available, right? However, the clock begins ticking until this unit expires after 5 days. Many hospital blood banks keep this product available for the massive transfusion protocol, especially if other hospital services are busy enough to use it if it is getting close to expiration. Waste is bad, and expensive!

Liquid plasma (never frozen)
This is prepared by taking the plasma that was separated from the donated blood and putting it in the refrigerator, not the freezer. It’s shelf life is that of the unit of whole blood it was taken from (21 days), plus another 5, for a total of 26 days. This product used to be a rarity, but is becoming more common because of its longer shelf life compared to thawed plasma.

Finally, a word on plasma compatibility. ABO compatibility is still a concern, but Rh is not. There are no red cells in the plasma to carry any of the antigens. However, plasma is loaded with A and/or B antibodies based on the donor’s blood type. So the compatibility chart is reversed compared to what you are accustomed to when giving red cells.

Remember, you are delivering antibodies with plasma and not antigens. So a Type A donor will have only Type B antibodies floating around in their plasma. This makes it incompatible with people with blood types B or AB.

Type O red cells are the universal donor type because the cells have no antigens on the surface. Since Type AB donors have both antigens on their red cells, they have no antibodies in their plasma. This makes AB plasma is the universal donor type. Weird, huh? Here’s a compatibility chart for plasma.

Next time, I’ll discuss the virtues of the various types of plasma when used for massive transfusion in trauma.

Resuscitation

Emergency Intubation: ED or OR?

March 24, 2023 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Decades ago, intubation of trauma patients only took place in the operating room, and only anesthesiologists performed it. As the discipline of Emergency Medicine came into being in the 1980s, emergency physicians became skilled in this procedure. Occasional trauma intubations had to occur in the ED, and typically anesthesia was called for it.

As the emergency physicians became more comfortable and improved their skills, they also started intubating. I distinctly remember a paper from the time (which I unfortunately do not have a reference to) stating that ED and OR intubation were equally safe if the ED intubation field could be made to look like the OR. This thinking has become commonplace, and in most trauma centers, intubation is now provided nearly exclusively by emergency physicians. Anesthesia is called only for extremely difficult cases.

But we have all been involved in cases where the patient is severely injured, usually hypotensive, and crashes and burns during or immediately after the procedure. This is likely due to a combination of loss of sympathetic tone due to the drugs administered, increased vagal tone from instrumenting the airway, and hypovolemia.

Authors from the University of Wisconsin, University of Pennsylvania, and Johns Hopkins hypothesized that ED intubation for patients requiring urgent operation for hemorrhage control was associated with adverse outcomes. They performed a three-year registry study from the National Trauma Program Databank of patients requiring laparotomy for hemorrhage control within 60 minutes of arrival. They excluded the dead and nearly dead (DOA, ED thoracotomy) and patients with immediate indications for intubation (head, neck, or facial trauma). They compared mortality, ED dwell time, blood transfusions, and major complications between patients with ED vs. OR intubation.

Here are the factoids:

Nearly 10,000 patients from 253 Level I or II trauma centers were included in the study
About 20% of patients underwent intubation in the ED, and they were more likely to have blunt trauma mechanism and higher ISS (22 vs. 17)
Initial vital signs were not clinically significant between the ED and OR groups
Mortality in the ED group was significantly higher (17% vs. 7%), the ED dwell time was significantly longer ( 31 vs. 22 minutes), required significantly more blood transfusion (6 vs. 4 units), and had a significantly higher risk of major complications (specifically cardiac arrest, AKI, and ARDS)
There was a wide variation in the rate of ED intubation across all the hospitals. Centers with the highest rate of ED intubations were 5x more likely to intubate than the lowest rate centers. The patient case mix could not explain this difference.
The lower ED intubation rate hospitals tended to be nonprofit Level I university hospitals
Centers with high levels of hemorrhage control surgery were more likely to intubate in the OR

Bottom line: From a purely technical perspective, the old dogma about patient location not making a difference is basically true. The process of getting an airway safely into the patient and secured is equivalent wherever it is done as long as the lighting, equipment, and skill levels are equivalent.

But when one considers the physiologic aftermath of this process, things are obviously more nuanced. Actively bleeding patients are extremely challenged, down to their organ and cellular levels. Disrupting their normal compensatory mechanisms is clearly associated with a significant downside.

We should clearly distinguish the patient who needs an airway for airway’s sake or cerebral protection from one who needs to be in the OR for bleeding control. Other papers have shown that mortality increases as each minute ticks by in the hemorrhaging patient. Trauma programs need to monitor these patients and do a performance improvement deep dive into all trauma patients intubated in the ED to ensure appropriate decision-making.

Reference: Emergency Department Versus Operating Room Intubation of Patients Undergoing Immediate Hemorrhage Control Surgery. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003907

Abstracts, Resuscitation

Best Of EAST 2023 #6: The Best Place To Intubate Bleeding Patients

January 10, 2023 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Forty years ago, the presumption was that the best way to intubate a trauma patient was to take them to a fully equipped operating room and have an anesthesiologist perform it. Then, a few years later, we finally figured out it could be done in the emergency department. The key to doing it safely was that the trauma bay needed to look like an OR, with appropriate airway equipment, lights, and drugs. And you had to ensure that your intubator had sufficient skills.

But we are all too familiar with one subset of trauma patients much more sensitive to the intubation process: those who are bleeding and in shock. They are desperately compensating to attempt to maintain their vital signs as much as they can with their sympathetic tone. Unfortunately, the intubation process and the drugs we use can eliminate this reflex and lead to immediate hemodynamic collapse.

The trauma group at Johns Hopkins postulated that intubation in the ED could lead to worse outcomes in this particular group of patients. They analyzed three years of data from the National Trauma Data Bank dataset, isolating patients at Level I and Level II trauma centers who underwent immediate hemorrhage control surgery after arrival. Patients who were dead on arrival, intubated for airway concerns, or underwent resuscitative thoracotomy were excluded.

The authors used a regression model to determine any association between intubation and mortality. They also analyzed the usual secondary outcomes (complications [cardiac arrest, ARDS, AKI, sepsis], transfusions, and time in the ED).

Here are the factoids:

Nearly ten thousand patients at 253 trauma centers met inclusion criteria
Most patients were men with penetrating injury
One in five underwent intubation in the ED before their hemorrhage control operation and suffered a 17% mortality rate vs. 7% in the OR intubation group, which was a significant difference
Median dwell time in the ED was 31 minutes vs. 22 minutes in the OR group
Transfusion amount was significantly higher in the ED vs. OR group (6 vs. 4 units RBC)
Rates of all complications were significantly higher in the ED vs. OR groups (except sepsis)
Overall, cardiac arrest with CPR occurred in 10% of ED vs. 4% OR intubations
Centers that had low ED intubation rates generally had significantly lower post-intubation cardiac arrest events than those with higher ED intubation rates.

The authors concluded that ED intubation of patients requiring hemorrhage control was associated with multiple adverse events. They recommended that these patients be taken to the OR, where both intubation and rapid bleeding control can be achieved.

Bottom line: This nice, clean abstract addresses a simple question. Although it uses a large database, the authors focused on a limited number of variables, keeping the analysis uncomplicated.

The abstract paints a clear picture that agrees with the subjective observations of many trauma professionals that intubation in these patients can be dangerous. They found significant increases in mortality and complications in patients intubated in the ED.

Does this mean that the procedure is not being done as well there? Absolutely not! I believe the key is in the ED dwell time data, which shows an average of 9 more minutes spent there for intubation. Previous research has shown how even a few minutes count when it comes to hemorrhage control. This abstract provides some hard numbers that show how important it really is to get to the OR.

Here are my questions and comments for the presenter/authors:

First, a minor point: how can the “median” GCS be 15? Fifteen is the highest it can go. The median is the number where half the results are higher and half are lower. So if no results can be higher, none can be lower. Does this mean that every one of your 10K patients was wide awake?
Please explain the figure a little better. Does it just show the mix of low vs. average vs. high ED intubation rates? Or does it go along with the statement that high intubation rate centers have a higher likelihood of cardiac arrest in these patients?

I really enjoyed this abstract and am looking forward to any additional details provided at the presentation.

Reference: EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VERSUS OPERATING ROOM INTUBATION OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING IMMEDIATE HEMORRHAGE CONTROL SURGERY, EAST 2023 Podium paper #13.

Head, Resuscitation

Best Of EAST 2023 #4: Whole Blood In Patients With Shock And TBI

January 6, 2023 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

We know that even a brief shock episode in patients with severe TBI dramatically increases mortality. Therefore, standard practice is to ensure good oxygenation with supplemental O2 and an adequate airway ASAP and to guard against hypotension with crystalloids and blood if needed.

Many papers (and several abstracts in this bunch) have been written about the benefits of whole blood transfusion. The group at the University of Texas in Houston compiled a prospective database of their experience with emergency release blood product usage in patients with hemorrhagic shock.

They massaged this database, analyzing a subset of patients with severe TBI, defined as AIS Head of 3. They specifically looked at mortality and outcome differences between those who received whole blood and those who received component therapy.

Here are the factoids:

A total of 564 patients met the TBI + shock criteria, and 341 (60%) received whole blood
Patients receiving whole blood had higher ISS (34 vs. 29), lower blood pressure (104 vs. 118), and higher lactate (4.3 vs. 3.6), all indicators of more severe injury
Initial univariate analysis did not identify any mortality difference, but using a weighted multivariate model teased out decreases in overall mortality, death from the TBI, and blood product usage
Neither statistical model demonstrated any difference in discharge disposition of ventilator days

The authors concluded that whole blood transfusion in patients with both hemorrhagic shock and TBI was associated with decreased mortality and blood product utilization.

Bottom line: This is yet another study trying to tease out the benefits of giving whole blood. The results are intriguing and show an association between whole blood use and survival. But remember, this type of study does not establish causality. It’s not possible to rule out other variables that were not available or not considered that could be the cause of the difference.

In this type of study, it’s essential to look at the design. Was it possible to create the study to record a complete set of variables that the researchers thought might contribute to the outcomes? Or is it a retrospective analysis of someone else’s data that contains just a few of them? This study falls into the latter category, so we have fewer data elements to work with and the likelihood that others that are not present could contribute to the outcomes.

The details of the multivariate analysis are also important. The authors stated that weighted multivariate analyses were performed. It’s not possible to provide details in a standard abstract, but these will be important for the audience to understand.

Here are my questions and comments for the presenter/authors:

Tell us more about the database you used for the analysis. What was the purpose? How many data elements did you collect, and how are they related to your research questions?
How did you decide which variables to include in your multivariate analysis? And how did you determine the weights? These can have a significant effect on your results.
This is a preliminary proof of idea study. How should this be followed up to move from association to causation?

This is just one of many exciting studies trying to shed light on the forgotten benefits of whole blood in trauma. I’m looking forward to seeing the final manuscript!

Reference: PATIENTS WITH BOTH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND HEMORRHAGIC SHOCK BENEFIT FROM RESUSCITATION WITH WHOLE BLOOD. EAST 2023 Podium paper #2.

Resuscitation

Best Of EAST 2023 #3: The Cost Of Whole Blood vs Component Therapy

January 5, 2023 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Decades ago, blood banks discovered they could fractionate units of whole blood into components for focused use. This was useful for patients who were thrombocytopenic or needed specific plasma factors. But trauma patients bleed whole blood, and trying to reassemble whole blood from components does not work well. Have a look at this chart:

It all comes down to money. Blood banks found they could charge more for the sum of the components of a unit of whole blood rather than the one unit itself. But now, with whole blood in trauma becoming a thing again, it’s essential to reexamine costs.

The University of Texas at San Antonio group examined transfusion-related charges for trauma patients receiving either component therapy or low-titer O+ whole blood within six hours of arrival. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. During the first two years, only component therapy was given. Whole blood was introduced during the last four years.

Here are the factoids:

Once the trauma center switched to whole blood, total annual transfusion charges, as well as component charges decreased by 17% overall
In both adults and children, whole blood was associated with a significantly lower cost per ml delivered and cost per patient throughout all phases of care
In severely injured patients (ISS>15), the same significantly lower costs were also noted
Patients who triggered the massive transfusion protocol also had a lower cost per ml of product in the ED and the first 24 hours

The authors concluded that whole blood was associated with lower charges and “improved logistics,” especially in massive transfusion patients.

Bottom line: This is an interesting and important paper. However, several questions still need to be answered. I recognize that there is limited space in an abstract, so I will list them below in hopes the authors will answer them during the presentation.

The first issue is that the numbers of patients and quantities of blood products given need to be listed. These are very important because the figures list only total charges and maybe costs. These numbers are not per unit of product, so the data may be skewed if the number of patients was different between the groups. For example, if 100 patients received component therapy and only 10 got whole blood, costs or charges could definitely be skewed.

And then there is the cost vs. charge confusion. The abstract seems to use them interchangeably. The methods section of the abstract states that charges were analyzed. Yet cost is mentioned in the results, and figure two shows “cost” on the axes, but the caption states that charges were listed.

We all know that hospitals can charge whatever they like, and that amount may vary based on insurance and other factors. The relationship between the charge and the cost is tenuous at best. Hopefully, the authors will clarify this at the start of the presentation.

Here are my comments and questions for the presenter/authors:

Please clarify the concept of charges vs. costs at the presentation’s beginning. If you truly analyzed only charges, do they bear any relationship to the actual costs of the units?
Shouldn’t your analysis of annual “charges” for product expenditures in Figure 1 be per unit? Otherwise, the costs and charges could be lower if fewer products were given after whole blood was introduced.
Was the switch to whole blood absolute, or was component therapy still given in some cases after 2018? If the switch was not total, there could be a selection bias in patients who received whole blood.
Figure 2 also appears to be total charges (or costs), not per patient or unit. But, again, without numbers it is difficult to say if the dollar differences are significant.
What are the “improved logistics” mentioned in the conclusion section? And how could they lower charges (or costs) in your study?

Lots of questions. I think you will need to provide a lot of explanation up front to justify your findings. Nevertheless, I’m excited about the presentation.

Reference: TRANSFUSION-RELATED COST COMPARISON OF TRAUMA PATIENTS RECEIVING WHOLE BLOOD VERSUS COMPONENT THERAPY. EAST 2023 podium abstract #28.

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog