ReviewTrauma surgery & acute care open2026
Expanding access to prehospital blood products: a narrative review of clinical evidence, systems barriers, and statewide strategies.
Review in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traumatic hemorrhage remains a leading cause of preventable death in the USA, and early administration of blood products improves outcomes in hemorrhagic shock. However, access to prehospital transfusion on ground ambulances remains limited and uneven. This narrative review synthesizes current clinical evidence, implementation barriers, and emerging models for prehospital blood use in the USA, with a focus on the potential role of statewide coordination within trauma systems. A targeted review of peer-reviewed literature, consensus guidelines, and system implementation reports was conducted, examining clinical efficacy, trauma system integration, regulatory frameworks, logistical considerations, reimbursement challenges, and statewide strategies. Approximately 3% of the 11 450 eligible US 9-1-1 ground emergency medical service (EMS) units currently provide prehospital blood transfusion, with access largely determined by local resources rather than patient need. Major barriers include logistical and stewardship challenges, lack of sustainable reimbursement pathways, absence of centralized data infrastructure, and the decentralized nature of the US blood supply. Clinical evidence supports the use of blood products for both traumatic and non-traumatic hemorrhage, demonstrating improvements in early hemodynamics and survival. Emerging efforts, including those led by the Prehospital Blood Transfusion Coalition and coordinated initiatives in states such as Texas, West Virginia, Florida, Delaware, and Colorado, highlight the feasibility of state-level implementation through shared governance, blood rotation strategies, and public investment. Overall, evidence supports the use of prehospital blood in selected populations, yet access remains limited and uneven. State-directed coordination represents a pragmatic framework to align existing blood centers, hospitals, and EMS agencies, although additional research, data integration, and national policy development are needed to guide broader implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.