Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2025
Microfluidics in Assessing Platelet Function
Published on: November 8, 2024
A safety and feasibility analysis on the use of cold-stored platelets in combat trauma
Andrew D Fisher1, Jonathan D Stallings, Steven G Schauer
1From the Department of Surgery (A.D.F.), University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Texas Army National Guard (A.D.F.), Austin; Joint Trauma System (J.D.S., B.A.G., C.S., J.M.G.), Defense Health Agency, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Departments of Anesthesiology (S.G.S.) and Emergency Medicine (S.G.S.), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado S.G.S; Velico Medical, Inc. (A.P.C.), Beverly, Massachusetts; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (S.G.S., A.P.C.), Bethesda, Maryland; and Defense Health Agency (S.A.S.), Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Background:
Damage-control resuscitation has come full circle, with the use of whole blood and balanced components. Lack of platelet availability may limit effective damage-control resuscitation. Platelets are typically stored and transfused at room temperature and have a short shelf-life, while cold-stored platelets (CSPs) have the advantage of a longer shelf-life. The US military introduced CSPs into the battlefield surgical environment in 2016. This study is a safety analysis for the use of CSPs in battlefield trauma.
Methods:
The Department of Defense Trauma Registry and Armed Services Blood Program databases were queried to identify casualties who received room-temperature-stored platelets (RSPs) or both RSPs and CSPs between January 1, 2016, and February 29, 2020. Characteristics of recipients of RSPs and RSPs-CSPs were compared and analyzed.
Results:
A total of 274 patients were identified; 131 (47.8%) received RSPs and 143 (52.2%) received RSPs-CSPs. The casualties were mostly male (97.1%), similar in age (31.7 years), with a median Injury Severity Score of 22. There was no difference in survival for recipients of RSPs (88.5%) versus RSPs-CSPs (86.7%; p = 0.645). Adverse events were similar between the two cohorts. Blood products received were higher in the RSPs-CSPs cohort compared with the RSPs cohort. The RSPs-CSPs cohort had more massive transfusion (53.5% vs. 33.5%, p = 0.001). A logistic regression model demonstrated that use of RSPs-CSPs was not associated with mortality, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.96 (p > 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-2.25).
Conclusion:
In this safety analysis of RSPs-CSPs compared with RSPs in a combat setting, survival was similar between the two groups. Given the safety and logistical feasibility, the results support continued use of CSPs in military environments and further research into how to optimize resuscitation strategies.
Level Of Evidence:
Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
