What Changed

On August 25, 2026, the University of Arizona announced a $30.6 million award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to study prehospital blood transfusion for trauma patients. The study will be run with the Arizona Department of Health Services and more than a dozen ground EMS agencies across the state.

The award isn't final. The university says it is "pending completion of PCORI's business, programmatic review and issuance of a formal award contract." EMS1 reported the study on August 28.

What It Says

These facts come from the university's announcement and EMS1's coverage:

  • Amount: $30.6 million from PCORI, pending a final contract.
  • Design: A comparative effectiveness study of prehospital blood transfusion compared with the current standard, crystalloid fluids such as saline, for patients in traumatic hemorrhagic shock.
  • Size and length: About 2,000 patients over more than six years.
  • Questions: How safe and effective prehospital blood is, whether it lowers deaths, and whether blood is best given in the field or at the hospital.
  • Rarity: According to co-principal investigator Dr. Joshua Gaither, an emergency medicine professor, only about one in every 1,000 cases paramedics go to would require a blood transfusion.

Gaither said: "The most frequent cause of death after trauma is bleeding. So, it makes intuitive sense that if you give the patient blood, they might have a better chance of survival." He also said: "Severe hemorrhagic shock is rare."

Why It Matters Operationally

Prehospital blood is now on the national EMS agenda. EMS1's coverage of the National EMS Advisory Council's August meeting listed prehospital blood among the council's priorities. Leaders will increasingly be asked to support, fund, or coordinate with blood programs.

The military has already made its decision. The Joint Trauma System's Prehospital Blood Transfusion CPG says that "early administration of blood products to the trauma patient in extremis is the standard in combat casualty care," and it names low titer group O whole blood as "the blood product of choice." The Joint Trauma System's Damage Control Resuscitation CPG reports that early blood resuscitation, "ideally within 36 minutes of injury," provides the lowest mortality. The May 2026 TCCC guidelines list cold stored low titer O whole blood as the most preferred resuscitation fluid.

Civilian systems are different, though. Transport times, patient populations, and costs aren't the same as on a battlefield, and that's why a study like this is useful.

ODM's Position

Position: Evidence like this helps agencies spend limited money wisely. Blood programs add to point-of-injury bleeding control. They don't replace it, and they shouldn't take money from it.

Evidence: Blood can only help a patient who is still alive when the medics arrive. Tourniquets, wound packing, and pressure, often applied first by police officers, are what keep that patient alive until then. The JTS Damage Control Resuscitation CPG says what saves lives is the combination of "point-of-injury hemorrhage control," rapid evacuation, and prehospital blood resuscitation. All three matter.

Strongest counterpoint: Some will argue the military data is strong enough already and that waiting six years for civilian results costs lives now. That's a fair argument. But civilian programs are expensive, and blood is needed in a small share of calls. Good local data helps leaders put blood where it will help the most patients.

What good looks like: EMS leaders decide on blood programs using the best available evidence. Police leaders make sure officers can control bleeding in the first minutes, however the blood question is answered. Both sides share data after major incidents so the next budget decision is based on real outcomes.

What Your Agency Should Do Now

  • Find out whether your EMS partners carry blood or plan to, and where it sits in your area's response.
  • Keep funding bleeding-control training and equipment for officers. It's needed whether or not your area has blood on ambulances.
  • Practice the police-to-EMS handoff, including what was done, when, and what the officer saw.
  • Collect your own casualty data from officer-involved and mass-casualty incidents so local decisions rest on local facts.
  • Follow the Arizona study as it moves from award to results, and don't overstate early findings either way.

Bottom Line

A large civilian study of prehospital blood is good news for anyone who has to fund trauma care. It won't change what the first officer at a shooting needs to do: stop the bleeding and get the patient to the people carrying blood.

Sources