Objectives

Major trials examining storage age of blood transfused to critically ill patients administered relatively few blood transfusions. We sought to determine if the storage age of blood affects outcomes when very large amounts of blood are transfused.

Design

A secondary analysis of the multicenter randomized Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation study which compared restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies.

Setting

Eighteen tertiary-care burn centers.

Patients

Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation evaluated 345 adults with burns greater than or equal to 20% of the body surface area. We included only the 303 patients that received blood transfusions.

Interventions

The storage ages of all transfused red cell units were collected during Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation. A priori measures of storage age were the the mean storage age of all transfused blood and the proportion of all transfused blood considered very old (stored ≥ 35 d).

Measurements and main results

The primary outcome was the severity of multiple organ dysfunction. Secondary outcomes included time to wound healing, the duration of mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. There were 6,786 red cell transfusions with a mean (± SD) storage age of 25.6 ± 10.2 days. Participants received a mean of 23.4 ± 31.2 blood transfusions (range, 1-219) and a mean of 5.3 ± 10.7 units of very old blood. Neither mean storage age nor proportion of very old blood had any influence on multiple organ dysfunction severity, time to wound healing, or mortality. Duration of ventilation was significantly predicted by both mean blood storage age and the proportion of very old blood, but this was of questionable clinical relevance given extreme variability in duration of ventilation (adjusted r ≤ 0.01).

Conclusions

Despite massive blood transfusion, including very old blood, the duration of red cell storage did not influence outcome in burn patients. Provision of the oldest blood first by Blood Banks is rational, even for massive transfusion.

Objectives

Studies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20-59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy.

Methods

Patients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin <7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin <10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.

Results

Three hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p < 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p < 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p < 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20-59%) group (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

A restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing.

Objectives

ABRUPT was a prospective, noninterventional, observational study of resuscitation practices at 21 burn centers. The primary goal was to examine burn resuscitation with albumin or crystalloids alone, to design a future prospective randomized trial.

Summary background data

No modern prospective study has determined whether to use colloids or crystalloids for acute burn resuscitation.

Methods

Patients ≥18 years with burns ≥ 20% total body surface area (TBSA) had hourly documentation of resuscitation parameters for 48 hours. Patients received either crystalloids alone or had albumin supplemented to crystalloid based on center protocols.

Results

Of 379 enrollees, two-thirds (253) were resuscitated with albumin and one-third (126) were resuscitated with crystalloid alone. Albumin patients received more total fluid than Crystalloid patients (5.2 ± 2.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 mL/kg/% TBSA burn/24 hours), but patients in the Albumin Group were older, had larger burns, higher admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, and more inhalation injury. Albumin lowered the in-to-out (I/O) ratio and was started ≤12 hours in patients with the highest initial fluid requirements, given >12 hours with intermediate requirements, and avoided in patients who responded to crystalloid alone.

Conclusions

Albumin use is associated with older age, larger and deeper burns, and more severe organ dysfunction at presentation. Albumin supplementation is started when initial crystalloid rates are above expected targets and improves the I/O ratio. The fluid received in the first 24 hours was at or above the Parkland Formula estimate.

Objective

Our objective was to compare outcomes of a restrictive to a liberal red cell transfusion strategy in 20% or more total body surface area (TBSA) burn patients. We hypothesized that the restrictive group would have less blood stream infection (BSI), organ dysfunction, and mortality.

Background

Patients with major burns have major (>1 blood volume) transfusion requirements. Studies suggest that a restrictive blood transfusion strategy is equivalent to a liberal strategy. However, major burn injury is precluded from these studies. The optimal transfusion strategy in major burn injury is thus needed but remains unknown.

Methods

This prospective randomized multicenter trial block randomized patients to a restrictive (hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL) or liberal (hemoglobin 10-11 g/dL) transfusion strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.

Results

Eighteen burn centers enrolled 345 patients with 20% or more TBSA burn similar in age, TBSA burn, and inhalation injury. A total of 7054 units blood were transfused. The restrictive group received fewer blood transfusions: mean 20.3 ± 32.7 units, median = 8 (interquartile range: 3, 24) versus mean 31.8 ± 44.3 units, median = 16 (interquartile range: 7, 40) in the liberal group (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum). BSI incidence, organ dysfunction, ventilator days, and time to wound healing (P > 0.05) were similar. In addition, there was no 30-day mortality difference: 9.5% restrictive versus 8.5% liberal (P = 0.892, χ test).

Conclusions

A restrictive transfusion strategy halved blood product utilization. Although the restrictive strategy did not decrease BSI, mortality, or organ dysfunction in major burn injury, these outcomes were no worse than the liberal strategy (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01079247).