• Tim W H Rijnhout, Femke Noorman, Annemarije Bek, Margreet Zoodsma, and Rigo Hoencamp.
• Department of Surgery, Alrijne Hospital Leiderdorp, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands twhrijnhout@alrijne.nl.
• Emerg Med J. 2020 Feb 1; 37 (2): 65-72.

ObjectivesMassive transfusion protocols (MTPs) may improve survival in patients with uncontrolled haemorrhage. An MTP was introduced into the Dutch transfusion guidelines in 2011, the ninth edition of the advanced trauma life support course in 2012 and the third version of the European guideline in 2013. This is the first survey of MTPs in Dutch trauma centres.MethodsThe aim of the study was to compare MTP strategies in level 1 trauma centres in The Netherlands, and with (inter)national guidelines. A contact in each government assigned level 1 trauma centre in The Netherlands and the Dutch Ministry of Defence was approached to share their MTPs and elucidate their protocol in a survey and oral follow-up interview.ResultsAll 11 level 1 trauma centres responded. The content of the packages and transfusion ratios (red blood cells/plasma/platelets) were 3:3:1, 5:5:1, 5:3:1, 2:3:1, 4:4:1, 5:2:1, 2:2:1 and 4:3:1. Tranexamic acid was used in all centres and an additional dose was administered in eight centres. Fibrinogen was given directly (n=4), with persistent bleeding (n=3), based on Clauss fibrinogen (n=3) or rotational thromboelastometry (n=1). All centres used additional medication in patients in the form of anticoagulants, but their use was ambiguous.ConclusionMTPs differed between institutes and guidelines. The discrepancies in transfusion ratios can be explained by (inter)national differences in preparation and volume of blood components and/or interpretation of the '1:1:1' guideline. We recommend updating MTPs every year using the latest guidelines and evaluating the level of evidence for treatment during massive transfusion.© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

25 keywords...

hide…