Sociedad Americana de Hirudoterapia

Reanimación con hemoderivados en pacientes con choque hemorrágico traumático que reciben atención prehospitalaria (RePHILL): un ensayo multicéntrico, abierto, aleatorizado, controlado y de fase 3

Resuscitation with blood products in patients with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock receiving prehospital care (RePHILL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Ensayo controlado aleatorizado en la revista Lancet Haematol (2022)

Última actualización: 18 de junio de 2026Revisado por: ASH Editorial Board
Artículo de investigación — revisión de la evidenciaReferencia del artículo
Evidencia: Ensayo controlado aleatorizadoLiteratura clínicaSeguridad y control de infeccionesCrombie N et al. · The Lancet. Haematology, 2022

Resumen

BACKGROUND: Time to treatment matters in traumatic haemorrhage but the optimal prehospital use of blood in major trauma remains uncertain. We investigated whether use of packed red blood cells (PRBC) and lyophilised plasma (LyoPlas) was superior to use of 0·9% sodium chloride for improving tissue perfusion and reducing mortality in trauma-related haemorrhagic shock. METHODS: Resuscitation with pre-hospital blood products (RePHILL) is a multicentre, allocation concealed, open-label, parallel group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in four civilian prehospital critical care services in the UK. Adults (age ≥16 years) with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock and hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or absence of palpable radial pulse) were assessed for eligibility by prehospital critial care teams. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either up to two units each of PRBC and LyoPlas or up to 1 L of 0·9% sodium chloride administered through the intravenous or intraosseous route. Sealed treatment packs which were identical in external appearance, containing PRBC-LyoPlas or 0·9% sodium chloride were prepared by blood banks and issued to participating sites according to a randomisation schedule prepared by the co-ordinating centre (1:1 ratio, stratified by site). The primary outcome was a composite of episode mortality or impaired lactate clearance, or both, measured in the intention-to-treat population. This study is completed and registered with ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN62326938. FINDINGS: From Nov 29, 2016 to Jan 2, 2021, prehospital critical care teams randomly assigned 432 participants to PRBC-LyoPlas (n=209) or to 0·9% sodium chloride (n=223). Trial recruitment was stopped before it achieved the intended sample size of 490 participants due to disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The median follow-up was 9 days (IQR 1 to 34) for participants in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and 7 days (0 to 31) for people in the 0·9% sodium chloride group. Participants were mostly white (62%) and male (82%), had a median age of 38 years (IQR 26 to 58), and were mostly involved in a road traffic collision (62%) with severe injuries (median injury severity score 36, IQR 25 to 50). Before randomisation, participants had received on average 430 mL crystalloid fluids and tranexamic acid (90%). The composite primary outcome occurred in 128 (64%) of 199 participants randomly assigned to PRBC-LyoPlas and 136 (65%) of 210 randomly assigned to 0·9% sodium chloride (adjusted risk difference -0·025% [95% CI -9·0 to 9·0], p=0·996). The rates of transfusion-related complications in the first 24 h after ED arrival were similar across treatment groups (PRBC-LyoPlas 11 [7%] of 148 compared with 0·9% sodium chloride nine [7%] of 137, adjusted relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·46-2·42]). Serious adverse events included acute respiratory distress syndrome in nine (6%) of 142 patients in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and three (2%) of 130 in 0·9% sodium chloride group, and two other unexpected serious adverse events, one in the PRBC-LyoPlas (cerebral infarct) and one in the 0·9% sodium chloride group (abnormal liver function test). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The trial did not show that prehospital PRBC-LyoPlas resuscitation was superior to 0·9% sodium chloride for adult patients with trauma related haemorrhagic shock. Further research is required to identify the characteristics of patients who might benefit from prehospital transfusion and to identify the optimal outcomes for transfusion trials in major trauma. The decision to commit to routine prehospital transfusion will require careful consideration by all stakeholders. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation.

Resumen tomado de PubMed (NCBI) para el registro citado, en el idioma original. La versión de referencia es la de la publicación original.

El resumen se deja sin traducir para conservar la redacción original de los autores.

Tipo de publicaciónClinical Trial, Phase IIIJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
Términos MeSH indexadosAdolescentAdultBlood TransfusionCOVID-19Emergency Medical ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsShock, HemorrhagicTreatment Outcome

Síntesis

Ensayo aleatorizado, abierto y multicéntrico en cuatro servicios prehospitalarios británicos (RePHILL): 432 adultos con choque hemorrágico traumático asignados a concentrados de hematíes con plasma liofilizado o cloruro de sodio al 0,9 %. El desenlace combinado (mortalidad del episodio o aclaramiento alterado de lactato) ocurrió en 128 de 199 (64 %) frente a 136 de 210 (65 %) (diferencia ajustada −0,025 %; IC 95 %, −9,0 a 9,0; p=0,996). Los autores no hallaron superioridad; no hubo muertes relacionadas con el tratamiento.

Contexto

Este ensayo controlado aleatorizado multicéntrico, abierto y de fase 3 (RePHILL) comparó la reanimación prehospitalaria con concentrados de hematíes más plasma liofilizado frente a solución de cloruro sódico al 0,9 % en 432 adultos con shock hemorrágico de origen traumático. El ensayo no halló superioridad de los productos sanguíneos sobre la solución salina en la variable principal compuesta de mortalidad o aclaramiento alterado de lactato. Este estudio aborda la medicina transfusional y la reanimación del paciente traumatizado. No se menciona en el resumen el uso de sanguijuelas, hirudoterapia, hirudina ni ningún anticoagulante derivado de sanguijuelas.

Citación

Referencia (estilo Vancouver)

Crombie N, Doughty HA, Bishop JRB, Desai A, Dixon EF, Hancox JM, et al. Resuscitation with blood products in patients with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock receiving prehospital care (RePHILL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2022;9(4):e250-e261. doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(22)00040-0. PMID: 35271808

Los datos bibliográficos (autores, volumen, páginas, DOI) proceden del registro de PubMed.

Contexto clínico relacionado

Explore cómo esta investigación se conecta con la práctica clínica

Investigación relacionada

Más estudios revisados por pares en la categoría «Literatura clínica».

Ver toda la investigación analizada por la ASH →

Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: 27 de mayo de 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: 18 de junio de 2026

Este sitio web proporciona información educativa y no constituye consejo médico, diagnóstico ni recomendaciones de tratamiento. La terapia con sanguijuelas medicinales conlleva riesgos clínicamente significativos y debe ser realizada únicamente por profesionales calificados bajo protocolos aprobados institucionalmente. La autorización 510(k) de la FDA para sanguijuelas medicinales se limita a indicaciones específicas; las discusiones sobre uso investigativo y fuera de indicación se señalan correspondientemente. Para orientación médica específica, consulte a un profesional de salud calificado.