Cost Savings of Whole Blood Versus Component Therapy at a Community Level 1 Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND Blood product component-only resuscitation (CORe) has been the standard of practice in both military and civilian trauma care with a 1:1:1 ratio used in attempt to recreate whole blood (WB) until recent data demonstrated WB to confer a survival advantage, leading to the emergence of WB as the contemporary resuscitation strategy of choice. Little is known about the cost and waste reduction associated with WB vs CORe. METHODS This study is a retrospective single-center review of adult trauma patients admitted to a community trauma center who received WB or CORe as part of their massive transfusion protocol (MTP) resuscitation from 2017 to 2021. The WB group received a minimum of one unit WB while CORe received no WB. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed. Statistical analysis was conducted using a 95% confidence level. Non-normally distributed, continuous data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS 576 patients were included (201 in WB and 375 in CORe). Whole blood conveyed a survival benefit vs CORe (OR 1.49 P < .05, 1.02-2.17). Whole blood use resulted in an overall reduction in products prepared (25.8%), volumes transfused (16.5%), product waste (38.7%), and MTP activation (56.3%). Cost savings were $849 923 annually and $3 399 693 over the study period. DISCUSSION Despite increased patient volumes over the study period (43.7%), the utilization of WB as compared to CORe resulted in an overall $3.39 million cost savings while improving mortality. As such, we propose WB should be utilized in all resuscitation strategies for the exsanguinating trauma patient.