The SWIFT trial investigated whether whole blood offers a survival benefit compared to component therapy in adult trauma patients requiring massive transfusions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either low titer group O whole blood or balanced component therapy, consisting of packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, and platelets in a 1:1:1 ratio.

The primary outcome was 24-hour mortality. The study found no statistically significant difference in 24-hour mortality between the whole blood group (20.3 percent) and the component therapy group (20.2 percent). There was also no significant difference in 30-day mortality.

Regarding secondary outcomes, the trial did not show any significant differences in major complications such as venous thromboembolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, infection, or multi-organ failure. There was also no difference in the length of stay in the intensive care unit or the hospital. The whole blood group did receive slightly less plasma and platelets overall, though they received a comparable amount of red blood cells.

The SWIFT trial concluded that, for adult trauma patients requiring massive transfusion, low titer group O whole blood did not demonstrate a survival benefit compared to a balanced component therapy strategy. The results suggest that prompt and balanced component therapy can achieve similar outcomes to whole blood in this patient population.

At this point, most people in the emergency medicine and critical care worlds just assume that balanced (ie, 1:1:1) transfusion is a proven intervention, and the focus has mostly moved on the the potential of whole blood. I am in an almost nonexistent minority when I argue that balanced transfusion is certainly not proven, and […]
The post No benefit from whole blood – the SWiFT trial appeared first on First10EM.

https://first10em.com/no-benefit-from-whole-blood-the-swift-trial/