Skip to main content

Prehospital Risk Stratification for Early Transfusion in Pediatric Trauma: A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis

In brief

EMS risk model identified 3.3% of children; 37% received early transfusion

In a national registry study of 79,764 children with trauma, a model using five EMS-observable features placed 3.3% in a high-risk tier; 36.7% of that group received a blood transfusion within four hours of hospital arrival. The tier captured 36.8% of all early transfusions, so most cases fell outside it, and the approach needs prospective validation before guiding care.

Journal
Prehospital emergency care (Q1)
Published
16 October 2026
Study design
Prospective / inception cohort
Evidence level
Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2b)
Authors
John Su, Joelle J Donofrio-Odmann, Francis X Guyette, Jonathan Studnek, Christyn Magill, Kathryn M Kothari, et al.
PMID
42886574
DOI
10.1080/10903127.2026.2750457

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Emergency Medicine (paper of the day, 19 October 2026): Prehospital risk stratification for early transfusion in pediatric trauma
  • Picked for Pediatrics and Child Health (paper of the day, 19 October 2026): Prehospital risk stratification for early transfusion in trauma

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric criteria remain limited for identifying injured children who may benefit from early blood transfusion for hemorrhagic shock. This study evaluated whether emergency medical services (EMS)-observable variables in a national trauma registry could identify children at risk for early hospital blood transfusion. METHODS: We conducted an observational retrospective cohort study using the National Trauma Data Bank (2017-2020). Among 391,126 records for patients aged 1-15 years, we included children transported by EMS directly from the scene to a participating trauma center after excluding burn injuries, interfacility transfers, and missing pre-identified EMS variables (systolic blood pressure, heart rate, or Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS]). The primary outcome was any blood product administered within 4 hours of emergency department arrival. Five prespecified EMS-observable predictors composed the model: age-adjusted hypotension, age-adjusted tachycardia, GCS ≤14, penetrating mechanism, and prehospital traumatic cardiac arrest. We fit a multivariable logistic regression and a classification and regression tree (CART) using an 80/20 stratified train-validation split. Missing data sensitivity analyses included multiple imputation and CART refitting in the broader eligible cohort. RESULTS: Among 79,764 children, 2,634 (3.3%) received early transfusion in the hospital. All five predictors were independently associated with early transfusion, led by GCS ≤14 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.61-9.22), penetrating mechanism (aOR 5.87; 95% CI, 5.28-6.51), and age-adjusted hypotension (aOR 5.39; 95% CI, 4.74-6.13). In the validation cohort, CART analysis stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk tiers comprising 77.0%, 19.7%, and 3.3% of patients, respectively. Early-transfusion rates were 1.2%, 6.1%, and 36.7% across these tiers. The high-risk tier accounted for 36.8% of all early transfusion events. Using the high-risk tier as a decision threshold, sensitivity was 36.8%, specificity 97.8%, positive predictive value 36.7%, and negative predictive value 97.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Five EMS-observable features, including age-adjusted hypotension, age-adjusted tachycardia, GCS ≤14, penetrating mechanism, and prehospital traumatic cardiac arrest, identified a small subgroup of pediatric trauma patients with substantially elevated risk of early hospital transfusion. This parsimonious framework may inform prospective validation of prehospital transfusion criteria.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.