Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Acute respiratory distress syndrom (1)
- Blood loss estimation (1)
- COVID 19 (1)
- Colorimetric blood loss estimation (1)
- Direct measurement (1)
- Gravimetric method (1)
- Intensive care units (1)
- Intubation (1)
- Opioids (1)
- Patient blood management (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3) (remove)
Introduction: Cell salvage (CS) is an integral part of patient blood management (PBM) and aims to reduce allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.
Material and methods: This observational study analysed patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) between November 2015 and October 2018. Patients were divided into a CS group (patients receiving CS) and a control group (no CS). Primary endpoints were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic RBC transfusions and the number of RBC units transfused per patient.
Results: A total of 704 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were analysed, of whom 338 underwent surgery with CS (CS group) and 366 were without CS (control group). Intraoperatively, 152 patients (45%) were exposed to allogeneic RBC transfusions in the CS group and 93 patients (25%) in the control group (P < 0.001). Considering the amount of intraoperative blood loss, regression analysis revealed a significant association between blood loss and increased use of RBC units in patients of the control compared to the CS group (1000 mL: 1.0 vs. 0.6 RBC units; 2000 mL: 2.2 vs. 1.1 RBC units; 3000 mL: 3.4 vs. 1.6 RBC units). Thus, CS was significantly associated with a reduced number of allogeneic RBCs by 40% for 1000 mL, 49% for 2000 mL, and 52% for 3000 mL of blood loss compared to patients without CS.
Conclusions: Cell salvage was significantly associated with a reduced number of allogeneic RBC transfusions. It supports the beneficial effect of CS in cardiac surgical patients as an individual measure in a comprehensive PBM program.
High sedation needs of critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients - a monocentric observational study
(2021)
Background: Therapy of severely affected coronavirus patient, requiring intubation and sedation is still challenging. Recently, difficulties in sedating these patients have been discussed. This study aims to describe sedation practices in patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of sedation regimens in critically ill intubated patients with respiratory failure who required sedation in our mixed 32-bed university intensive care unit. All mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring continuously infused sedative therapy admitted between April 4, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were included. We recorded demographic data, sedative dosages, prone positioning, sedation levels and duration. Descriptive data analysis was performed; for additional analysis, a logistic regression with mixed effect was used. Results: In total, 56 patients (mean age 67 (±14) years) were included. The mean observed sedation period was 224 (±139) hours. To achieve the prescribed sedation level, we observed the need for two or three sedatives in 48.7% and 12.8% of the cases, respectively. In cases with a triple sedation regimen, the combination of clonidine, esketamine and midazolam was observed in most cases (75.7%). Analgesia was achieved using sufentanil in 98.6% of the cases. The analysis showed that the majority of COVID-19 patients required an unusually high sedation dose compared to those available in the literature. Conclusion: The global pandemic continues to affect patients severely requiring ventilation and sedation, but optimal sedation strategies are still lacking. The findings of our observation suggest unusual high dosages of sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Prescribed sedation levels appear to be achievable only with several combinations of sedatives in most critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19-induced ARDS and a potential association to the often required sophisticated critical care including prone positioning and ECMO treatment seems conceivable.
Estimating intraoperative blood loss is one of the daily challenges for clinicians. Despite the knowledge of the inaccuracy of visual estimation by anaesthetists and surgeons, this is still the mainstay to estimate surgical blood loss. This review aims at highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of currently used measurement methods. A systematic review of studies on estimation of blood loss was carried out. Studies were included investigating the accuracy of techniques for quantifying blood loss in vivo and in vitro. We excluded nonhuman trials and studies using only monitoring parameters to estimate blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate systematic measurement errors of the different methods. Only studies that were compared with a validated reference e.g. Haemoglobin extraction assay were included. 90 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and were analyzed. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, as only these were conducted with a validated reference. The mixed effect meta-analysis showed the highest correlation to the reference for colorimetric methods (0.93 95% CI 0.91–0.96), followed by gravimetric (0.77 95% CI 0.61–0.93) and finally visual methods (0.61 95% CI 0.40–0.82). The bias for estimated blood loss (ml) was lowest for colorimetric methods (57.59 95% CI 23.88–91.3) compared to the reference, followed by gravimetric (326.36 95% CI 201.65–450.86) and visual methods (456.51 95% CI 395.19–517.83). Of the many studies included, only a few were compared with a validated reference. The majority of the studies chose known imprecise procedures as the method of comparison. Colorimetric methods offer the highest degree of accuracy in blood loss estimation. Systems that use colorimetric techniques have a significant advantage in the real-time assessment of blood loss.