The Red Shift: Prehospital Blood Products Revolutionizing Trauma Care

In the dynamic field of prehospital medicine, advancements are constantly reshaping patient care. One of the most significant clinical shifts currently underway is the move away from traditional crystalloid resuscitation towards the early administration of blood and blood components, specifically whole blood or plasma, for patients experiencing trauma with hemorrhagic shock. This paradigm shift is backed by a growing body of research demonstrating improved patient outcomes and represents a critical evolution in how EMS providers manage severe bleeding.

The Limitations of Crystalloids in Hemorrhagic Shock

For decades, crystalloid solutions like normal saline or Lactated Ringer's were the cornerstone of fluid resuscitation in trauma. The rationale was to restore circulating volume and maintain blood pressure. However, extensive research and clinical experience have revealed significant drawbacks to this approach in cases of severe hemorrhagic shock. Crystalloids lack oxygen-carrying capacity and clotting factors, and large volumes can lead to dilutional coagulopathy, hypothermia, and acidosis, collectively known as the "lethal triad" [1]. These adverse effects can exacerbate bleeding and worsen patient prognosis. As one study noted, "For patients in hemorrhagic shock, plasma offers an excellent alternative to the legacy and harmful practice of crystalloid-only resuscitation" [2]. Another emphasized that "Crystalloid is not a preferred resuscitation for hemorrhagic shock unless blood products are not available and the patient is in shock" [3].

The Emergence of Prehospital Blood Products

The recognition of crystalloids' limitations has propelled the adoption of blood products in the prehospital setting. The goal is to provide essential components lost during hemorrhage, such as red blood cells for oxygen transport and plasma for clotting factors, as early as possible. This strategy aims to prevent or mitigate the lethal triad and improve survival rates.

Whole Blood vs. Component Therapy

Both whole blood and component therapy (packed red blood cells and plasma) are utilized. Whole blood, containing all blood components, offers a theoretical advantage due to its resemblance to native blood, providing a balanced resuscitation that includes red cells, platelets, and plasma simultaneously [4]. This can more efficiently correct trauma-induced coagulopathy. Studies have shown that patients receiving whole blood were more likely to survive to hospital discharge, though some studies were underpowered to detect statistical significance [5].

Component therapy, typically administered in the emergency room, involves separating blood into its constituents. Research comparing crystalloids, plasma, red blood cells (pRBCs), and pRBCs+plasma in traumatic hemorrhagic shock found that patients fared worst with crystalloids alone and best with pRBCs+plasma, which intuitively makes sense due to decreased oxygen carrying capacity and worsened coagulopathy from IV fluid use [4].

Clinical Evidence and Impact on Mortality

Multiple studies highlight the benefits of early prehospital blood product administration:

• A randomized control trial by Guyette et al. (2021) compared various resuscitation strategies and found that patients did worse with crystalloids alone, while pRBCs+plasma yielded the best outcomes [4].

• A retrospective study by Braverman et al. (2021) found that pre-hospital transfusion with low titer O+ whole blood (LTOWB) was associated with lower ED mortality and reduced transfusion volume required, although long-term mortality differences did not always reach statistical significance [4].

• Nationwide estimates suggest that prehospital blood transfusions significantly reduce mortality risk for injured patients in hemorrhagic shock. A study analyzing data from 2020-2023 estimated that over 21,000 lives could have been saved nationwide with full implementation of prehospital blood products [6]. The average EMS time from on-scene arrival to patient destination was 38 minutes, and for patients with prehospital times greater than 20 minutes, nearly 20,000 deaths could have been averted [6].

• The potential benefit of prehospital plasma is particularly strong when transport times exceed 40 minutes. Patients with anticipated prehospital times over 40 minutes, or transport times over 20 minutes, are among those most likely to benefit from prehospital blood administration [7].

Metropolitan vs. Rural Implementation: Bridging the Gap

The implementation of prehospital blood programs presents unique challenges and opportunities in different geographical settings. Rural areas, often characterized by longer transport times and fewer immediate resources, stand to gain significantly from these programs.

Longer Transport Times in Rural Settings

Research consistently shows that prehospital time intervals—including response, on-scene, and transport times—are significantly longer in rural areas compared to urban communities [8]. This extended time to definitive care makes early prehospital intervention, such as blood product administration, even more critical for rural trauma patients. The benefits of prehospital blood products are amplified when transport times are prolonged, as it helps bridge the gap until patients reach a trauma center [7].

Pilot Projects and Feasibility

Despite logistical hurdles, rural EMS agencies are actively pioneering prehospital blood programs. A pilot project in rural North Georgia demonstrated the safety and feasibility of paramedics initiating blood products for hemorrhaging patients. This project, which involved liquid plasma due to cost and availability, saw 100 field initiations with no adverse effects, leading to the establishment of a post-licensure skill for paramedics in Georgia [9]. Such initiatives highlight the importance of stakeholder commitment, resource availability, and interdisciplinary partnerships for successful implementation in rural landscapes.

Conversely, while urban areas might have shorter transport times, the sheer volume of trauma cases and the complexity of coordinating blood product delivery within dense metropolitan environments also pose distinct challenges. Some studies suggest that suburban and rural agencies have adopted prehospital blood transfusion at a faster rate than their urban counterparts, partly due to financial and perceived minimal barriers [10].

Conclusion

The shift from crystalloids to prehospital blood products marks a pivotal advancement in trauma care. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the benefits of early blood administration in improving survival rates for patients in hemorrhagic shock. While implementation varies between metropolitan and rural settings, the critical need for this intervention, particularly in areas with longer transport times, is undeniable. Continued research, robust training, and collaborative efforts are essential to expand access to this life-saving therapy, ensuring that all trauma patients, regardless of location, receive the best possible chance at survival.

 

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this article please share! We also have some really cool EMS/Fire appear located in our shop! All your support helps keeps us running. 

References

1. Guyette, F. X., Sperry, J. L., Peitzman, A. B., et al. (2021). Prehospital blood product and crystalloid resuscitation in the severely injured patient: a secondary analysis of the prehospital air medical plasma trial. Annals of Surgery, 273(2), 385-392.

2. Levy, M. J. (2025). Whole blood and plasma in prehospital hemorrhagic shock. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 10(2), e001828. Available at: https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/10/2/e001828

3. Brito, A. M. P., et al. (2021). Prehospital resuscitation. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 6(1), e000729. Available at: https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/6/1/e000729

4. Leung, A. (2022). Prehospital Blood Transfusion. NAEMSP. Available at: https://naemsp.org/2022-5-23-prehospital-blood-transfusion/

5. Emergency Medicine. (2023). Prehospital Blood Product Transfusion in Trauma. Washington University Emergency Medicine Journal Club. Available at: https://emergencymedicine.wustl.edu/prehospital-blood-product-transfusion-in-trauma/

6. Lammers, D. T., et al. (2025). Nationwide estimates of potential lives saved with prehospital blood transfusions. Transfusion. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12035975/

7. McNeilly, B., et al. (2025). Prehospital Blood Administration in Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11997682/

8. Alruwaili, A., & Alanazy, A. R. M. (2022). Prehospital Time Interval for Urban and Rural Emergency Medical Services: A Systematic Literature Review. Healthcare, 10(12), 2391. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/10/12/2391

9. Creel, N., Gibson, J., Gibson, K., Shirley, L., & Richart, C. (2023). Changing the Playing Field: A Prehospital Blood Product Pilot Project in Rural North Georgia. Am Surg, 89(9), 3794-3798. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36798046/

Schaefer, R. M., et al. (2024). Removing the barriers to prehospital blood: A roadmap to success. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 97(2), 209-216. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/fulltext/2024/08001/removing_the_barriers_to_prehospital_blood__a.23.aspx