Next Article in Journal
Quality of Life, Perceived Social Support, and Treatment Adherence Among Methadone Maintenance Program Users: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating Maturity Models in Healthcare Information Systems: A Comprehensive Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Toward Standardized Massive Transfusion Protocols: A Multicenter Evaluation of Practice Variability Within a National Trauma System

1
Division of Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon 16499, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Surgery, National Medical Center, Seoul 04564, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Trauma Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan 43241, Republic of Korea
4
Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 04564, Republic of Korea
5
Department of Trauma Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 04564, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2025, 13(15), 1848; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151848
Submission received: 23 May 2025 / Revised: 1 July 2025 / Accepted: 10 July 2025 / Published: 29 July 2025

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Hemorrhage remains a leading cause of early mortality in trauma patients, and timely transfusion guided by a structured massive transfusion protocol (MTP) is critical for improving outcomes. Although regional trauma centers have been established, standardized MTPs remain insufficiently developed in many settings. This study aimed to evaluate current MTP practices across five major trauma centers within a national trauma care system. Methods: Participating institutions provided written protocols and completed a structured survey addressing key domains, including activation criteria, transfusion strategies, laboratory monitoring, adjunct therapies, termination processes, and performance improvement measures. Findings were analyzed and compared against established international recommendations. Results: All centers had implemented MTPs and were capable of delivering initial blood products within 15 min. However, considerable variation was observed in activation triggers, transfusion ratios, and laboratory monitoring protocols. None of these centers maintained thawed plasma or whole blood in immediate readiness. Only one of five centers had a formal performance improvement monitoring system. Tranexamic acid was included in all institutional protocols. Conclusions: This review highlights significant variability and critical gaps in MTP implementation across trauma centers. Inconsistent activation criteria, the absence of essential components, and limited quality monitoring may compromise the efficacy of current practices. To improve patient outcomes, a standardized, evidence-based MTP framework should be developed and implemented nationwide.

1. Introduction

Hemorrhage is a leading cause of death in trauma patients, accounting for approximately 30–40% of trauma-related mortality. Bleeding-related deaths represent the largest proportion of early trauma fatalities [1]. In hemodynamically unstable patients, rapid hemorrhage control is essential. As part of damage control resuscitation, prompt administration of blood products with a balanced transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), plasma, and platelets is recommended [2], as this approach mitigates traumatic coagulopathy and reduces mortality.
The traditional definition of massive transfusion, the administration of ≥10 units of RBCs within 24 h, has limitations, particularly because it requires survival for at least 24 h and may introduce bias by excluding patients who succumb earlier. Recent systematic reviews have proposed alternative definitions, such as the transfusion of 3–5 units of RBCs within 1–6 h [3]. The Joint United Kingdom Blood Transfusion and Tissue Transplantation Services define massive transfusion based on estimated blood loss; however, accurately quantifying blood loss in clinical settings remains challenging.
To address these limitations, most trauma centers employ massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) [4]. These protocols are executed by multidisciplinary teams that include blood bank personnel, pathologists, trauma surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, support staff, and quality improvement specialists. MTP activation prompts the blood bank to prepare and dispatch pre-specified blood products while cross-matching is underway [5]. This process facilitates rapid transfusion during initial resuscitation, enhances efficiency, reduces the total transfusion volume, and lowers associated costs [6].
Evidence supports the use of balanced transfusion strategies to improve outcomes in patients requiring massive transfusion. The Prospective, Observational, Multicenter, Major Trauma Transfusion study demonstrated that higher ratios of plasma and platelet transfusion were associated with improved 24 h survival [7]. The subsequent Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) study showed that a 1:1:1 transfusion ratio of RBCs, plasma, and platelets reduced 24 h mortality due to exsanguination [8]. As a result, this ratio has become the standard in MTPs. These protocols aim to promptly identify patients who require a massive transfusion, ensure balanced blood product delivery, and promote efficient and safe transfusion practices [9]. Ongoing efforts continue to refine MTPs in light of emerging evidence and evolving clinical practices [5,10].
In South Korea, the government established 17 regional trauma centers between 2012 and 2022 [11]. Although these centers are not formally tiered as in the United States, they serve functions comparable to Level 1 trauma centers and play a central role in regional trauma care. Most have implemented MTPs developed by benchmarking established international models and adapting them to the Korean healthcare context.
The present study aimed to analyze the MTPs employed by five major trauma centers in South Korea and propose a foundational framework for standardized MTP implementation that incorporates current best practices.

2. Materials and Methods

MTPs are standardized institutional procedures designed to ensure the timely delivery of blood products to patients with life-threatening hemorrhage. These protocols typically include predefined criteria for activation, a fixed-ratio transfusion strategy involving red blood cells, fresh-frozen plasma, and platelets, as well as guidance on laboratory monitoring, adjunctive therapies, and termination of the protocol [12].
This study was conducted as part of the prospective multicenter Cohort for Optimal Hemostatic Transfusion in Trauma–Korea (COHTRA-K) project, which aims to establish optimal transfusion strategies for patients with massive traumatic hemorrhage. Four regional trauma centers and one high-level trauma treatment center in the Republic of Korea participated in this initiative. MTPs actively used in clinical practice at each institution were collected for evaluation. The analytical framework was based on the evaluation tool presented in the ACS TQIP Massive Transfusion in Trauma Guidelines, developed by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Committee on Trauma under the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP).
Designated personnel who oversee MTP implementation at each center completed a structured questionnaire developed by the COHTRA-K research group. The questionnaire addressed seven core domains: essential components, initiation, fixed-ratio blood component batch, laboratory monitoring, adjuncts, termination, and performance improvement monitoring. The content of the questionnaire was finalized through multiple research team meetings to ensure comprehensive coverage of documentation practices, operational procedures, and institutional resources. The full questionnaire is provided in the Supplementary Material.
Responses were compiled and systematically analyzed to compare the structure and application of MTPs across the five participating centers. Each response item was cross-referenced to assess how MTPs were implemented in cases of massive hemorrhage, enabling an objective representation of current practices.

3. Results

Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 summarize the presence or absence of each MTP component across five centers. In these tables, ‘Y’ indicates that the item is implemented at the institution, while ‘N’ denotes that it is not.

3.1. Essential Components

All five trauma centers (A–E) incorporated the core elements of an MTP, including activation criteria, balanced transfusion strategies, operating room transition, therapeutic targets, adjunctive treatments, and defined termination procedures. Four centers provided explicit protocols for transferring patients to an Angio Suite or intensive care unit, whereas one center lacked such guidance. Only one center had implemented a structured performance improvement (PI) monitoring system; the remaining centers reported no formal PI measures (Table 1).

3.2. Initiation of MTP

Each center maintained written criteria for MTP activation. Common triggers included systolic blood pressure below a designated threshold, elevated heart rate, a positive Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma, or penetrating trauma. Four centers employed a scoring system (e.g., the Assessment of Blood Consumption [ABC] score) above a defined cutoff, while one center relied solely on hypotension. Several centers noted that persistent hemodynamic instability could prompt activation based on clinical judgment. All centers reported mechanisms to ensure delivery of the first blood product within 15 min of MTP initiation (Table 2).

3.3. Fixed-Ratio Blood Component Batches and Unmatched Blood

All five centers initially administered type O RBCs, with two also using AB plasma in early resuscitation. No center utilized thawed plasma or low-titer group A plasma. Platelet units were not included in initial transfusion packs at any site. Three centers maintained on-site blood product storage within the trauma bay or emergency department (ED), whereas two lacked immediate access. Four centers employed blood warmers or rapid infusion devices; one center did not report using any specialized equipment. All centers followed fixed RBC-to-plasma ratios in early transfusion (Table 3).

3.4. Laboratory Monitoring

Four centers outlined defined testing intervals and laboratory parameters for MTP management; one did not specify a schedule. All centers routinely assessed the prothrombin time/international normalized ratio, activated partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen levels, and platelet counts. However, one center did not monitor hemoglobin, hematocrit, or lactate levels. Viscoelastic testing using thromboelastography or rotational thromboelastometry was available in three centers, whereas two lacked this capacity (Table 4).

3.5. Adjuncts

Tranexamic acid (TXA) was included in the MTPs of all five centers. Cryoprecipitate was available for patients with severe coagulopathy. One center used fibrin concentrate or prothrombin complex concentrate, whereas four did not report the use of these agents (Table 5).

3.6. Termination of MTP

All centers documented criteria and timing for MTP termination and indicated a transition to goal-directed therapy upon protocol completion. However, none provided specific numeric thresholds for discontinuation (Table 6).

3.7. PI Monitoring

Only one center reported maintaining a structured PI system, which monitored transfusion times, departmental notification rates at protocol termination, and blood product wastage. The remaining centers had no formalized performance monitoring practices (Table 7).

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Key Findings and Comparison with the Literature

This review of MTPs across five major trauma centers in South Korea revealed substantial variability in protocol components and identified key gaps relative to established best practices. All participating centers had implemented MTPs incorporating core elements such as initiation criteria, balanced transfusion strategies, and termination guidelines. However, differences were observed in activation criteria, transfusion ratios, and blood product logistics. Notably, none of the centers maintained pre-thawed plasma or low-titer O whole blood (LTOWB) for immediate use. Despite these limitations, all centers aimed to deliver blood products within 15 min of MTP activation. Only one center reported a formal performance improvement system to evaluate MTP effectiveness. These findings indicate that while MTPs are in routine use, their standardization and optimization remain incomplete.
Previous studies have highlighted wide variability in the structure and implementation of MHPs among Level 1 trauma centers in both North America and Europe [13,14,15]. These reports emphasize discrepancies in activation criteria, transfusion practices, adjunct use, and performance monitoring across institutions.

4.2. Differences and Similarities with ACS TQIP Guidelines

Comparison with the ACS TQIP guidelines revealed several discrepancies. The ACS TQIP outlines a comprehensive MTP framework, including clear activation criteria, immediate availability of blood products, balanced transfusion ratios, adjunctive therapies, termination criteria, and mechanisms for performance monitoring [12,16]. For activation, objective criteria, such as an ABC score ≥ 2 or clinical evidence of hemorrhagic shock, are recommended [12]. Early activation is emphasized, as it has been associated with improved survival outcomes [7,17].
Blood product availability and transfusion ratios also diverged from ACS TQIP recommendations. The guidelines advocate a 1:1:1 ratio of packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and platelets [18]. However, none of the surveyed Korean centers maintained thawed plasma on-site, resulting in an unbalanced transfusion approach during initial resuscitation. This limitation is largely attributable to the absence of national usage guidelines and clinical consensus on thawed plasma, as well as insufficient infrastructure, including storage and management systems. This delay contradicts ACS TQIP guidance, which recommends immediate availability of thawed plasma [19]. Institutions maintaining ED plasma inventories have reported reductions in product wastage and coagulopathy [20].
A further distinction is the absence of whole blood use. Evidence suggests that LTOWB improves survival in patients with severe hemorrhage when compared to component therapy [21]. Despite this, no Korean trauma center had incorporated LTOWB into their MTP. In Korea, this limitation is primarily attributable to the lack of nationally established protocols and clinical consensus for LTOWB use, along with the absence of a structured system for its collection and distribution. Adjunctive therapies recommended by ACS TQIP were variably implemented. All centers included TXA in their protocols, and three utilized viscoelastic hemostatic assays to guide resuscitation [8,22].
Despite variations in specific practices, the MTPs used in Korean trauma centers share several structural similarities with the ACS TQIP recommendations. All centers have implemented protocols encompassing key elements such as activation, transfusion strategy, and termination. A fixed-ratio transfusion approach, reflecting the concept of balanced resuscitation, was consistently applied across institutions. Additionally, all centers maintained written criteria for MTP activation, aligning with the TQIP emphasis on standardized and objective activation protocols.

4.3. MTP Activation, Blood Product Use, and Adjuncts

Our findings are consistent with prior Korean studies. A single-center report noted that following MTP implementation, the median time to first transfusion decreased from approximately 41 min to 15 min [19]. A multicenter analysis demonstrated that each minute of delay in delivering the first blood product after MTP activation increases the odds of mortality by 5% [23].
Balanced transfusion has been consistently associated with improved outcomes. Both retrospective analyses and randomized trials, including the PROPPR study, support early administration of high ratios of FFP and platelets relative to PRBCs [8,18]. Korean studies similarly reported that higher FFP and platelet ratios were associated with reduced mortality [24,25]. Internationally, the majority of trauma centers participating in the ACS TQIP have adopted MTPs aligned with damage control resuscitation principles [26].
The universal use of TXA across all surveyed centers aligns with evidence supporting its survival benefit when administered early in hemorrhagic trauma. In contrast, the absence of LTOWB use in Korea stands in opposition to evolving practices in U.S. and European trauma systems, where whole blood programs have been associated with improved outcomes [21].
Although mixed results have been reported regarding the mortality benefit of MTP implementation, most studies demonstrate improvements in morbidity and process-related measures [20,27]. Centers that adhere more closely to evidence-based MTP guidelines have shown better outcomes, including reduced coagulopathy and improved survival [19].

4.4. PI Monitoring

A key area for improvement is the implementation of formal performance monitoring. The ACS TQIP specifically recommends that MTPs include quality assurance components [12]. Relevant performance indicators include appropriate MTP activation, time to first transfusion, achieved blood product ratios, incidence of coagulopathy, and overall patient outcomes [23,28]. In this study, only one center reported an active performance monitoring system.
We recommend that all Korean trauma centers incorporate massive transfusion case reviews into their quality assurance programs. Key metrics should include appropriate MTP activation, time to delivery of blood products, PRBC–FFP–platelet ratios at 4 and 24 h, incidence of acute traumatic coagulopathy, blood product wastage, transfusion ratios at the point of hemorrhage control, and documentation of regular multidisciplinary case reviews. To implement PI with minimal burden, we propose designating a charge person responsible for MTP oversight at each center and developing generalized, tailored templates utilizing these key metrics.

4.5. Limitations

This study had some limitations. First, the analysis was based on written protocols and survey responses rather than direct observation of clinical practice, which may not fully reflect real-world implementation. Prospective data collection on MTP protocols and associated clinical outcomes will facilitate future investigations into their relationships with mortality and transfusion requirements. Second, the heterogeneity in protocol formatting across institutions introduced challenges in comparative analysis. The sample size was limited to five major trauma centers, which, although representative of high-level trauma care in South Korea, may not capture practices in smaller or less-resourced facilities. Third, the evaluation framework relied primarily on ACS TQIP guidelines, which may not be entirely applicable in the Korean healthcare context due to differing resource availability. Finally, clinical outcome data were not collected, precluding an assessment of protocol effectiveness on patient morbidity or mortality.

4.6. Conclusions and Future Directions

Despite these limitations, this multicenter review demonstrates that MTPs have been implemented in all five surveyed regional trauma centers in South Korea, representing a substantial advancement in the national trauma care infrastructure. However, the findings also underscore persistent inconsistencies and deviations from internationally recognized best practices. Notable deficiencies include the absence of readily available thawed plasma, lack of LTOWB, variability in activation criteria, and incomplete integration of adjunctive therapies and monitoring tools. Critically, only one center had established a performance improvement monitoring system. These gaps may compromise the effectiveness of current MTPs and hinder optimal patient outcomes. The Korean experience highlights the challenges of protocol standardization in rapidly evolving trauma systems and provides insights relevant to other countries undergoing similar transitions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare13151848/s1, The COHTRA-K Questionnaire.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K., D.S., and K.J.; methodology, J.K., D.S., and K.J.; data curation, J.K., Y.K., J.H.K., T.K., H.C., and I.H.; formal analysis, J.K., and D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K., D.S., I.H., and K.J.; writing—review and editing, J.K., D.S., I.H., and K.J.; supervision, K.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea, grant number HI22C1806.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical restrictions and patient privacy concerns.

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted as part of the COHTRA-K project and supported by the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through KHIDI, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI22C1806).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ABCAssessment of Blood Consumption
ACSAmerican College of Surgeons
COHTRA-KCohort for Optimal Hemostatic Transfusion in Trauma–Korea
EDEmergency Department
FFPFresh frozen plasma
LTOWBLow-titer O whole blood
MTPMassive transfusion protocol
PIPerformance improvement
PRBCPacked red blood cell
PROPPRPragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios trial
RBCRed blood cell
TQIPTrauma Quality Improvement Program
TXATranexamic acid

References

  1. Kauvar, D.S.; Lefering, R.; Wade, C.E. Impact of hemorrhage on trauma outcome: An overview of epidemiology, clinical presentations, and therapeutic considerations. J. Trauma 2006, 60, S3–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. LaGrone, L.N.; Stein, D.; Cribari, C.; Kaups, K.; Harris, C.; Miller, A.N.; Smith, B.; Dutton, R.; Bulger, E.; Napolitano, L.M. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma: Clinical protocol for damage-control resuscitation for the adult trauma patient. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2024, 96, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lin, V.S.; Sun, E.; Yau, S.; Abeyakoon, C.; Seamer, G.; Bhopal, S.; Tucker, H.; Doree, C.; Brunskill, S.J.; McQuilten, Z.K.; et al. Definitions of massive transfusion in adults with critical bleeding: A systematic review. Crit. Care 2023, 27, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schuster, K.M.; Davis, K.A.; Lui, F.Y.; Maerz, L.L.; Kaplan, L.J. The status of massive transfusion protocols in United States trauma centers: Massive transfusion or massive confusion? Transfusion 2010, 50, 1545–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Moore, S.A.; Raval, J.S. Massive transfusion: A review. Ann. Blood 2022, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. O’Keeffe, T.; Refaai, M.; Tchorz, K.; Forestner, J.E.; Sarode, R. A massive transfusion protocol to decrease blood component use and costs. Arch. Surg. 2008, 143, 686–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Holcomb, J.B.; del Junco, D.J.; Fox, E.E.; Wade, C.E.; Cohen, M.J.; Schreiber, M.A.; Alarcon, L.H.; Bai, Y.; Brasel, K.J.; Bulger, E.M.; et al. The prospective, observational, multicenter, major trauma transfusion (PROMMTT) study: Comparative effectiveness of a time-varying treatment with competing risks. JAMA Surg. 2013, 148, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Holcomb, J.B.; Tilley, B.C.; Baraniuk, S.; Fox, E.E.; Wade, C.E.; Podbielski, J.M.; del Junco, D.J.; Brasel, K.J.; Bulger, E.M.; Callcut, R.A.; et al. Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs. a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: The PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015, 313, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Patil, V.; Shetmahajan, M. Massive transfusion and massive transfusion protocol. Indian J. Anaesth. 2014, 58, 590–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abuzeid, A.M.; O’Keeffe, T. Review of massive transfusion protocols in the injured, bleeding patient. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2019, 25, 661–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jung, K.; Kwon, J.; Huh, Y.; Moon, J.; Hwang, K.; Cho, H.M.; Kim, J.H.; Park, C.I.; Yun, J.H.; Kim, O.H.; et al. National trauma system establishment based on implementation of regional trauma centers improves outcomes of trauma care: A follow-up observational study in South Korea. PLoS Glob. Public Health 2022, 2, e0000162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. ACS TQIP Massive Transfusion In Trauma Guidelines. Trauma Quality Improvement Program. 2014. Available online: https://www.facs.org/media/zcjdtrd1/transfusion_guildelines.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
  13. Dilday, J.; Lewis, M.R. Transfusion management in the trauma patient. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2022, 28, 725–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chin, V.; Cope, S.; Yeh, C.H.; Thompson, T.; Nascimento, B.; Pavenski, K.; Callum, J. Massive hemorrhage protocol survey: Marked variability and absent in one-third of hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Injury 2019, 50, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nasca, B.; Reddy, S.; Furmanchuk, A.; Lundberg, A.; Kong, N.; Andrei, A.C.; Theros, J.; Thomas, A.; Ingram, M.; Sanchez, J.; et al. Hospital variation in adoption of balanced transfusion practices among injured patients requiring blood transfusions. Surgery 2024, 176, 1273–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. American College of Surgeons. Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient; ACS: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Meyer, D.E.; Vincent, L.E.; Fox, E.E.; O’Keeffe, T.; Inaba, K.; Bulger, E.; Holcomb, J.B.; Cotton, B.A. Every minute counts: Time to delivery of initial massive transfusion cooler and its impact on mortality. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017, 83, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Cannon, J.W.; Khan, M.A.; Raja, A.S.; Cohen, M.J.; Como, J.J.; Cotton, B.A.; Dubose, J.J.; Fox, E.E.; Inaba, K.; Rodriguez, C.J.; et al. Damage control resuscitation in patients with severe traumatic hemorrhage: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017, 82, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sun, H.W.; Lee, S.B.; Park, S.J.; Park, C.I.; Kim, J.H. Effects of massive transfusion protocol implementation in trauma patients at a level I trauma center. J. Trauma Inj. 2021, 33, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Radwan, Z.A.; Bai, Y.; Matijevic, N.; del Junco, D.J.; McCarthy, J.J.; Wade, C.E.; Holcomb, J.B.; Cotton, B.A. An emergency department thawed plasma protocol for severely injured patients. JAMA Surg. 2013, 148, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Troughton, M.; Young, P.P. Conservation of Rh negative low titer O whole blood (LTOWB) and the need for a national conversation to define its use in trauma transfusion protocols. Transfusion 2021, 61, 1966–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gonzalez, E.; Moore, E.E.; Moore, H.B.; Chapman, M.P.; Chin, T.L.; Ghasabyan, A.; Wohlauer, M.V.; Barnett, C.C.; Bensard, D.D.; Biffl, W.L.; et al. Goal-directed hemostatic resuscitation of trauma-induced coagulopathy: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing a viscoelastic assay to conventional coagulation assays. Ann. Surg. 2016, 263, 1051–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sanderson, B.; Coiera, E.; Asrianti, L.; Field, J.; Estcourt, L.J.; Wood, E.M. How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators. Blood Transfus. 2020, 18, 423–433. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kwon, J.; Yoo, J.; Kim, S.; Jung, K.; Yi, I.K. Evaluation of the Potential for Improvement of Clinical Outcomes in Trauma Patients with Massive Hemorrhage by Maintaining a High Plasma-to-Red Blood Cell Ratio during the First Hour of Hospitalization. Emerg. Med. Int. 2023, 2023, 5588707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lee, M.A.; Park, H.; Yu, B.; Choi, K.K.; Park, Y.; Lee, G.J. Implementation of a massive transfusion protocol: A single trauma center experience from South Korea. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2022, 10, 1412–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chang, R.; Cardenas, J.C.; Wade, C.E.; Holcomb, J.B. Trauma big data: US major trauma center survey of massive transfusion practices. Transfusion 2017, 57, 2892–2899. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shaz, B.H.; Dente, C.J.; Nicholas, J.; MacLeod, J.B.; Young, A.N.; Easley, K.; Ling, Q.; Harris, R.S.; Hillyer, C.D. Increased number of coagulation products in relationship to red blood cell products transfused improves mortality in trauma patients. Transfusion 2010, 50, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nunez, T.C.; Young, P.P.; Holcomb, J.B.; Cotton, B.A. Creation, implementation, and maturation of a massive transfusion protocol for the exsanguinating trauma patient. J. Trauma 2010, 68, 1498–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Presence of essential components in massive transfusion protocols across five trauma centers.
Table 1. Presence of essential components in massive transfusion protocols across five trauma centers.
ComponentABCDE
InitiationYYYYY
Balanced transfusionYYYYY
Transition to ORYYYYY
Transition to Angio SuiteYYNYY
Transition to ICUYYNYY
TargetYYYYY
AdjunctsYYYYY
TerminationYYYYY
PI monitoringYNNNN
OR, operating room; ICU, intensive care unit; PI, performance improvement.
Table 2. Criteria and processes for initiation of massive transfusion protocols.
Table 2. Criteria and processes for initiation of massive transfusion protocols.
ParameterABCDE
Is the activation criterion documented?YYYYY
Are objective criteria used for activation? (open-ended)SBP ≤ 90SBP ≤ 90SBP ≤ 90SBP ≤ 90SBP ≤ 90
HR ≥ 120HR ≥ 120HR ≥ 120HR ≥ 120
Positive FASTPositive FASTPositive FASTPositive FAST
Penetrating torso injuryPenetrating torso injuryPenetrating torso injuryPenetrating torso injury
Is a large-volume hemorrhage/transfusion predictive score used? (open-ended question)ABC score ≥ 2NABC score ≥ 2ABC score ≥ 2ABC score ≥ 2
Is subjective clinical judgment used?Persistent hemodynamic instabilityYNYY
Is active bleeding requiring surgery or angioembolization included as a criterion?YYYNY
Is transfusion in the trauma bay used as an activation criterion?NNNNN
Is there a separate, rapid decision-making process for immediate MTP activation?YYYYY
Are initial blood products available within 15 min of activation?YYYYY
SBP, systolic blood pressure; HR, heart rate; FAST, Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma; ABC, Assessment of Blood Consumption; MTP, massive transfusion protocol.
Table 3. Fixed-ratio blood component practices in initial transfusion batches across five trauma centers.
Table 3. Fixed-ratio blood component practices in initial transfusion batches across five trauma centers.
ComponentABCDE
Blood preparation in trauma bay/ERYYNNY
Use of O (Rh+) RBCYYYYY
Use of O (Rh−) RBCNYYNN
Use of AB (Rh+) FFPYNYNN
Use of low-titer A FFPNNNNN
Use of thawed plasmaNNNNN
Inclusion of platelets in the first transfusion batchNNNNN
Storage of platelets in the trauma bayNNNNN
Use of a blood warmerYNYYY
Use of a rapid infusion deviceYNYYY
Enforced fixed RBC-to-plasma transfusion ratioYYYYY
ER, emergency room; RBC, red blood cell; FFP, fresh frozen plasma.
Table 4. Laboratory monitoring parameters specified in massive transfusion protocols.
Table 4. Laboratory monitoring parameters specified in massive transfusion protocols.
ParameterABCDE
Type and frequency of laboratory monitoring specifiedYNYYY
PT (INR)YYYYY
aPTTYYYYY
FibrinogenYYYYY
HgbYYYNY
PlateletYYYYY
HctYYYNY
iCaYYYYY
BGAYYYYY
Lactic acidYYYNY
TEGNNNYN
TEG6SYNNNN
ROTEMNNYNN
Sampling frequency < 1 hYNYYY
PT, prothrombin time; INR, international normalized ratio; APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; Hgb, hemoglobin; Hct, hematocrit; iCa, ionized calcium; BGA, blood gas analysis; TEG, thromboelastography; TEG6S, Thromboelastograph 6s Hemostasis Analyzer System; ROTEM, rotational thromboelastometry.
Table 5. Use of adjunct therapies in massive transfusion protocols.
Table 5. Use of adjunct therapies in massive transfusion protocols.
Adjunct TherapyABCDE
TXAYYYYY
CryoprecipitateYYYYY
Fibrin concentrateNNNNY
PCCNNNNY
TXA, tranexamic acid; PCC, prothrombin complex concentrate.
Table 6. Termination criteria and transition strategy in massive transfusion protocols.
Table 6. Termination criteria and transition strategy in massive transfusion protocols.
ItemABCDE
Are termination criteria documented?YYYYY
Is the transition to goal-directed transfusion strategy specified?YYYYY
Table 7. Performance improvement monitoring elements in massive transfusion protocols.
Table 7. Performance improvement monitoring elements in massive transfusion protocols.
Monitoring ElementABCDE
ComplicationsYYYYY
Time to first RBC transfusionYNNNN
Time to first plasma transfusionYNNNN
Time to first platelet transfusionYNNNN
Ratio of blood products transfused within 1 h of MTP activationYNNNN
Notification of relevant department within 1 h after MTP terminationYNNNN
Rate of discarded blood productsYYYYY
Documentation of regular in-department reviewYNNNY
Documentation of regular multidisciplinary reviewYNNNN
RBC, red blood cell; MTP, massive transfusion protocol.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seo, D.; Kwon, J.; Heo, I.; Kim, Y.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, T.; Cho, H.; Jung, K. Toward Standardized Massive Transfusion Protocols: A Multicenter Evaluation of Practice Variability Within a National Trauma System. Healthcare 2025, 13, 1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151848

AMA Style

Seo D, Kwon J, Heo I, Kim Y, Kim JH, Kim T, Cho H, Jung K. Toward Standardized Massive Transfusion Protocols: A Multicenter Evaluation of Practice Variability Within a National Trauma System. Healthcare. 2025; 13(15):1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151848

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seo, Dongmin, Junsik Kwon, Inhae Heo, Younghwan Kim, Jae Hun Kim, Taegyun Kim, Hangjoo Cho, and Kyoungwon Jung. 2025. "Toward Standardized Massive Transfusion Protocols: A Multicenter Evaluation of Practice Variability Within a National Trauma System" Healthcare 13, no. 15: 1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151848

APA Style

Seo, D., Kwon, J., Heo, I., Kim, Y., Kim, J. H., Kim, T., Cho, H., & Jung, K. (2025). Toward Standardized Massive Transfusion Protocols: A Multicenter Evaluation of Practice Variability Within a National Trauma System. Healthcare, 13(15), 1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151848

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop