Skip to content

Optimization Strategies for Blood Transfusion Protocols in the Emergency Treatment of Hemorrhagic Shock

Optimization Strategies for Blood Transfusion Protocols in the Emergency Treatment of Hemorrhagic Shock

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07129031
Enrollment
180
Registered
2025-08-19
Start date
2025-09-01
Completion date
2027-12-31
Last updated
2025-08-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Hemorrhage, Hemorrhagic Shock, Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB)

Keywords

Hemorrhagic shock, transfusion, low-titer O-group whole blood, group of 1:1:1 component, group of ABO- and Rh-compatible whole blood

Brief summary

This single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial was approved by the institutional ethics committee and overseen by an independent data and safety monitoring board. It enrolled patients with hemorrhagic shock caused by trauma or major gastrointestinal bleeding. Using a random-number-table method, participants were allocated to three groups: (1) Control group: standard massive transfusion protocol (MTP) with transfusing type-specific blood components in a 1:1:1 ratio. (2) Type-specific whole-blood group: following emergency ABO typing and cross-matching, type-specific whole blood was transfused. (3) Low-titer group O whole-blood group: in the emergency phase, 4 units of low-titer group O whole blood (anti-A/B IgM titer \< 1:64) were infused; after definitive ABO typing, patients were switched to type-specific whole blood. Clinical data were automatically extracted from the electronic medical record system. Primary endpoints were efficacy (28-day survival), timeliness (transfusion waiting time and time to achieve target mean arterial pressure), cost-effectiveness (total blood consumption and transfusion-related expenses), and safety (transfusion-associated adverse events including TRALI and hemolytic reactions).Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional-hazards regression, adjusting for confounders such as age and disease severity scores. The advantages and disadvantages of each transfusion strategy were evaluated, and an optimized strategy for emergency blood transfusion in hemorrhagic shock was developed. This strategy was peer-reviewed and refined, culminating in a standardized, multidisciplinary, emergency-transfusion protocol.

Interventions

DRUGlow-titer O-group whole blood

Arm Description: During the emergency phase, administer 4 units of low-titer group O whole blood (anti-A/B IgM antibody titer \< 1:64); once the patient's blood type is determined, switch to type-specific whole blood.

DRUG1:1:1 component transfusion

Following the Chinese Expert Consensus on Emergency Blood Support Models and Transfusion Strategies for Severely Injured Patients (2024 Edition), implement the massive transfusion protocol (MTP) by transfusing type-specific blood components in a 1:1:1 ratio (red blood cells : plasma : platelets).

DRUGABO- and Rh-compatible whole blood

Administer type-specific whole-blood transfusion in accordance with the Chinese Expert Consensus on Emergency Blood Support Models and Transfusion Strategies for Severely Injured Patients (2024 Edition).

Sponsors

Xijing Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
10 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with hemorrhagic shock due to trauma or upper gastrointestinal bleeding who meet emergency transfusion criteria (hemoglobin \< 7 g/dL or active bleeding). Age 10-90 years. Time from onset to hospital admission \< 24 hours.

Exclusion criteria

* Severe underlying diseases (end-stage organ failure or active malignancy). Known coagulopathy or history of severe transfusion reactions. Refusal to participate or inability to complete follow-up.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
survival rate24 hours,30 days

Countries

China

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026