Objective: The aim of this study was to identify a mortality benefit with the use of whole blood (WB) as part of the resuscitation of bleeding trauma patients. Background: Blood component therapy (BCT) is the current standard for resuscitating trauma patients, with WB emerging as the blood product of choice. We hypothesized that the use of WB versus BCT alone would result in decreased mortality. Methods: We performed a 14-center, prospective observational study of trauma patients who received WB versus BCT during their resuscitation. We applied a generalized linear mixed-effects model with a random effect and controlled for age, sex, mechanism of injury (MOI), and injury severity score. All patients who received blood as part of their initial resuscitation were included. Primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, and bleeding complications. Results: A total of 1623 [WB: 1180 (74%), BCT: 443(27%)] patients who sustained penetrating (53%) or blunt (47%) injury were included. Patients who received WB had a higher shock index (0.98 vs 0.83), more comorbidities, and more blunt MOI (all P<0.05). After controlling for center, age, sex, MOI, and injury severity score, we found no differences in the rates of acute kidney injury, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism or pulmonary complications. WB patients were 9% less likely to experience bleeding complications and were 48% less likely to die than BCT patients (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Compared with BCT, the use of WB was associated with a 48% reduction in mortality in trauma patients. Our study supports the use of WB use in the resuscitation of trauma patients.

Severe sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and traumatic brain injury are frequently associated with hyperglycemia in non-diabetic patients. In patients suffering from any of these conditions, hyperglycemia at admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) is directly correlated with increased mortality or morbidity. Although there was initial enthusiasm for insulin treatment to blood glucose levels below 110 mg/dL in these patients, recent understanding suggests that the potential for hypoglycemic complications make this approach potentially dangerous. More moderate glucose control seems to be more beneficial than the aggressive glucose lowering initially suggested. An important publication has shown that hyperlactatemia accompanying hyperglycemia could be the real culprit in bad outcomes. This suggests that coupling moderate glucose lowering with therapeutic agents which might treat the underlying metabolic disturbances in these conditions may be a better strategy. The key metabolic disturbance in these three conditions seems to be persistent glycolysis as an energy source even in the presence of adequate tissue oxygenation (the Warburg Effect). We look at recent advances in understanding aerobic glycolysis and possibly the action of DPP4 on incretins resulting in insulin dysregulation and suggest key metabolic pathways involved in hyperglycemia regulation.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in nationwide social distancing and shelter-in-place orders meant to curb transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The effect of the pandemic on injury patterns has not been well described in the USA. The study objective is to determine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the distribution and determinants of traumatic injuries.MethodsThis retrospective multi-institutional cohort study included all hospital admissions for acute traumatic injury at six community level I trauma centers. Descriptive statistics were used to compare injury causes, diagnoses and procedures over two similar time periods: prepandemic (March 11–June 30, 2019) and pandemic (March 11–June 30, 2020).ResultsThere were 7308 trauma patients included: 3862 (53%) prepandemic and 3446 (47%) during the pandemic. Cause of injury significantly differed by period (p<0.001). During the pandemic, there were decreases in motor vehicle crashes (from 17.0% to 14.0%, p<0.001), worksite injuries (from 5.2% to 4.1%, p=0.02), pedestrian injuries (from 3.0% to 2.2%, p=0.02) and recreational injuries (from 3.0% to 1.7%, p<0.001), while there were significant increases in assaults (6.9% to 8.5%, p=0.01), bicycle crashes (2.8% to 4.2%, p=0.001) and off-road vehicle injuries (1.8% to 3.0%, p<0.001). There was no change by study period in falls, motorcycle injuries, crush/strikes, firearm and self-inflicted injuries, and injuries associated with home-improvement projects. Injury diagnoses differed between time periods; during the pandemic, there were more injury diagnoses to the head (23.0% to 27.3%, p<0.001) and the knee/leg (11.7% to 14.9%, p<0.001). There were also increases in medical/surgical procedures (57.5% to 61.9%, p<0.001), administration of therapeutics/blood products (31.4% to 34.2%, p=0.01) and monitoring (11.0% to 12.9%, p=0.01).DiscussionCauses of traumatic injury, diagnoses, and procedures were significantly changed by the pandemic. Trauma centers must adjust to meet the changing demands associated with altered injury patterns, as they were associated with increased use of hospital resources.Level of evidenceIII (epidemiological).

No abstract

No abstract