This study was conducted to investigate whether rapid and efficient administration of blood products was achieved and whether clinical outcomes were improved by applying a massive transfusion protocol (MTP).

From January 2016 to September 2019, the medical records of trauma patients who received at least 10 units of packed red blood cells (PRBC) at Pusan National University Hospital (level I trauma center) were retrospectively reviewed. The patients treated from January 2016 to January 2018 were designated as the non-MTP group, and those treated from February 2018 to September 2019 were designated as the MTP group.

During the study period, 370 patients received massive transfusions. The non-MTP and MTP groups comprised 84 and 55 patients, respectively. No significant between-group differences were found in the units of PRBC (23.2 vs. 25.3, respectively; p=0.46), fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (21.1 vs. 24.4, respectively; p=0.40), and platelets (PLT) (15.4 vs. 17.0, respectively; p=0.54) administered in the first 24 hours. No statistically significant differences between the non-MTP and MTP groups were found in the FFP-to-PRBC ratio (0.9 vs. 0.94, respectively; p=0.44) and or the PLT-to-PRBC ratio (0.72 vs. 0.72, respectively; p=0.21). However, the total number of cryoprecipitate units was significantly higher in the MTP group than in the non-MTP group (7.4 vs. 15.3 units, respectively; p=0.003) and the ratio of cryoprecipitate to PRBC in the MTP group was significantly higher than in the non-MTP group (0.31 vs. 0.62, respectively; p=0.021). The time to transfusion was significantly reduced after MTP implementation (41.0 vs. 14.9 minutes, respectively; p=0.003).

Although no significant differences were found in the clinical outcomes of patients who had undergone severe trauma, rapid and balanced transfusion was achieved after implementing the MTP.

To determine whether a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) meets the goals of a low infection rate and long-term use in trauma patients.

From January 2016 to June 2018, the medical records of patients who underwent central venous catheterization at a level I trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included age, sex, injury severity score, site of catheterization, place of catheterization (intensive care unit [ICU], emergency department, or general ward), type of catheter, length of hospital stay during catheterization, types of cultured bacteria, time to development of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and complications.

During the study period, 333 central vein catheters (CVC) were inserted with a total of 2,626 catheter-days and 97 PICCs were placed with a total of 2,227 catheter-days. The CLABSI rate was significantly lower in the PICC group when the analysis was limited to patients for whom the catheter was changed for the first time in the ICU after CVC insertion in the ER with similar indication and catheter insertion times (18.6 vs. 10.3/1,000 catheter-days, respectively, p<0.05). The median duration of catheter use was significantly longer in the PICC group than in the CVC group (16 vs. 6 days, respectively, p<0.05).

The study results showed that the duration of catheter use was longer and the infection rate were lower in the PICC group than in the CVC group, suggesting that PICC is a safe and reliable alternative to conventional CVC.