ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2024
[Prehospital blood transfusion : Opportunities and challenges for the German emergency medical services].
Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revised french military transfusion doctrine for large-scale combat operations: a consensus framework.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExsanguination is the leading cause of preventable death in severe trauma. Immediate hemorrhage control and transfusion of blood products are critical to maintain oxygen delivery and address trauma-induced coagulopathy. While prehospital blood product transfusion (PHBT) is established in neighboring countries, the fragmented configuration of Germany's emergency medical service (EMS) infrastructure has delayed the adoption of widespread PHBT programmes. This review aims to provide an updated perspective on the evolution, international practices and research needs of PHBT within the German context.
methodsThis narrative review is based on a PubMed search using the search terms "prehospital" and "blood*". From an initial 4738 articles, 333 were directly related to PHBT and were subjected to further detailed examination. The literature, including referenced studies, was categorized into areas such as history, rationale, international practices, and evidence, and analyzed for quality.
resultsThe benefit of early blood transfusion in major trauma has been established since WW1, explaining the efforts to initiate this lifesaving intervention as early as possible in the care pathway, including the prehospital field. Recent randomized trials have faced design and recruitment challenges, reflecting the complexity of the research question. These trials have yielded inconclusive results regarding the survival benefits of PHBT in civilian settings. This scenario raises doubts about the capability of randomized trials to resolve questions concerning survival advantages. Despite these difficulties, there is a discernible trend indicating potential improvements in patient outcomes. In Germany, the incidence of trauma-associated shock stands at 38 per 100,000 individuals per year. It is estimated that between 300 and 1800 patients annually possibly benefit from PHBT.
conclusionPrehospital Blood Transfusion appears to be promising but identifying patient groups most likely to benefit as well as the most suitable blood products remain unresolved issues. In Germany PHBT programs are not yet widely established. Paradoxically, this situation, paired with the extensive German Trauma Registry, provides a prime opportunity for comprehensive prospective cohort studies, addressing the balance between PHBT benefits, logistical feasibility, and implementation strategies. Such studies are essential for establishing guidelines and integrating PHBT efficiently into German trauma care protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.