1. Can RH+ whole blood be safely used as an alternative to RH− product? An analysis of efforts to improve the sustainability of a hospital’s low titer group O whole blood program
- Author
-
C. Cameron McCoy, Charles E. Wade, Kelsey Montgomery, Bryan A. Cotton, Madeline E. Cotton, and David E. Meyer
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Resuscitation ,Shock, Hemorrhagic ,Rh Isoimmunization ,Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine ,ABO Blood-Group System ,Injury Severity Score ,Trauma Centers ,Blood product ,medicine ,Humans ,Blood Transfusion ,Whole blood ,business.industry ,Transfusion Reaction ,Emergency department ,Middle Aged ,Institutional review board ,medicine.disease ,Hemolysis ,Treatment Outcome ,Blood pressure ,Blunt trauma ,Anesthesia ,Wounds and Injuries ,Female ,Surgery ,business ,Program Evaluation - Abstract
BACKGROUND Low-titer group O whole blood (LTO-WB) has recently gained popularity in trauma centers for the acute resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock. However, limited supplies of Rh- product prevent implementation and strain sustainability at many trauma centers. We set out to identify whether Rh+ LTO-WB could be safely substituted for RH- product, regardless of patient's Rh status. METHODS Following Institutional Review Board approval, information on all trauma patients receiving prehospital or emergency department transfusion of uncrossed, emergency release LTO-WB (11/17-10/19) were evaluated. Patients were first divided into those who received Rh- versus Rh+ product, the assessed by Rh of the recipient. Serial hemolysis panels, transfusion reactions, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS Six hundred thirty-seven consecutive trauma patients received emergency release LTO-WB. Of these, 448 received Rh+ product, while 189 received Rh- LTO-WB. Patients receiving Rh+ product were more likely to be men (81 vs. 70%) and have lower field blood pressure (median 99 vs. 109) and GCS (median 7 vs. 12); all p < 0.05. There were no differences in blood product volume, hemolysis laboratories, transfusion reactions, complications, or survival. We then separated patients by Rh status (577 were Rh+, 70 were Rh-). Rh- patients were older (median age 54 vs. 39), more likely to be women (57 vs. 26%), and more likely to have sustained blunt trauma than their Rh+ counterparts (92 vs. 70%); all p < 0.05. There were no differences in hemolysis laboratories, transfusion reactions, complications, or survival between Rh+ and Rh- patients, regardless of Rh product received. CONCLUSION When Rh- whole blood is unavailable or in short supply, Rh+ LTO-WB appears to be a safe alternative for the resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock in both Rh+ and Rh- patients. Use of Rh+ product may help trauma centers incorporate LTO-WB into their hospital and improve sustainability of such programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, Level III.
- Published
- 2021