• Alexander P Morton, Ernest E Moore, Max V Wohlauer, Karen Lo, Chris C Silliman, Clay Cothren Burlew, and Ani Banerjee.
• University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
• J. Surg. Res. 2013 Jan 1;179(1):5-9.

BackgroundIntense debate continues in the search of the optimal ratio of blood components to deliver preemptively in the critically injured patient anticipated to require a massive transfusion. A major challenge is distinguishing patients with refractory coagulopathy versus those with overwhelming injuries who will perish irrespective of blood component administration. The hypothesis of this clinical study is that a predominant number of early deaths from hemorrhage are irretrievable despite an aggressive transfusion policy.Materials And MethodsDuring the 7-y period ending in December 2009, there were 772 in-hospital trauma deaths. Each of these deaths had been assigned a cause of death via concurrent review by the multidisciplinary hospital trauma quality improvement committee. Emergency department deaths and patients arriving from outside facilities were excluded from this study.ResultsOf the 382 patients (49.5% of total) who died secondary to acute blood loss, 84 (22.0%) survived beyond the ED; of these 84, 68 (81%) were male, mean age was 31 y, and 30 (36%) sustained blunt trauma. Cause of death was determined to be exsanguination in 63 (75%), coagulopathy in 13 (15%), metabolic failure in 5 (6%), and indeterminate in 3 patients (4%).ConclusionThese data indicate that 75% of patients who succumb to postinjury acute blood loss are bleeding because they are dying rather than dying because they are bleeding. Conversely, only 13 (2%) of the hospital deaths were attributed to refractory coagulopathy. These critical facts need to be considered in designing studies to determine optimal massive transfusion protocols.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…