When Minutes Matter: A Comparison of Whole Blood Collection Techniques.

BACKGROUND:Fast and reliable blood collection is critical to emergency walking blood banks (WBB) because mortality significantly declines when blood is quickly administered to a warfighter with hemorrhagic shock. Phlebotomy for WBB is accomplished via either the "straight stick" (SS) or "ruggedized lock" (RL) method. SS comprises a 16-gauge phlebotomy needle connected to a blood collection bag via tubing. The RL device collects blood through the same apparatus, but has a capped, intravenous (IV) catheter between the needle and the donor's arm. This is the first study to compare these two methods in battlefield-relevant metrics. METHODS:Military first responders and licensed medical providers (N=86) were trained in SS and RL as part of fresh whole blood training exercises. Outcomes included venipuncture success rates, time to IV access, blood collection times, total time, and user preferences, using a within-subjects crossover design. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and nonparametric statistics at p<0.05. RESULTS:SS outperformed RL in first venipuncture success rates (76% vs. 64%, p=0.07), IV access times (448 [standard error of the mean; SE 23] vs. 558 [SE 31] s, p<0.01), and blood collection bag fill times (573 [SE 48] vs. 703 [SE 44] s, p<0.05), resulting in an approximate 3.5-minute faster time overall. Survey data were mixed, with users perceiving SS as simpler and faster, but RL as more reliable and secure. CONCLUSION:SS is optimal when timely collection is imperative, while RL may be preferable when device stability or replacing the collection bag is a consideration.