Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Patient blood management (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
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.
Purpose: Trauma is the leading cause of death in children. In adults, blood transfusion and fluid resuscitation protocols changed resulting in a decrease of morbidity and mortality over the past 2 decades. Here, transfusion and fluid resuscitation practices were analysed in severe injured children in Germany.
Methods: Severely injured children (maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3) admitted to a certified trauma-centre (TraumaZentrum DGU®) between 2002 and 2017 and registered at the TraumaRegister DGU® were included and assessed regarding blood transfusion rates and fluid therapy.
Results: 5,118 children (aged 1–15 years) with a mean ISS 22 were analysed. Blood transfusion rates administered until ICU admission decreased from 18% (2002–2005) to 7% (2014–2017). Children who are transfused are increasingly seriously injured. ISS has increased for transfused children aged 1–15 years (2002–2005: mean 27.7–34.4 in 2014–2017). ISS in non-transfused children has decreased in children aged 1–15 years (2002–2005: mean 19.6 to mean 17.6 in 2014–2017). Mean prehospital fluid administration decreased from 980 to 549 ml without affecting hemodynamic instability.
Conclusion: Blood transfusion rates and amount of fluid resuscitation decreased in severe injured children over a 16-year period in Germany. Restrictive blood transfusion and fluid management has become common practice in severe injured children. A prehospital restrictive fluid management strategy in severely injured children is not associated with a worsened hemodynamic state, abnormal coagulation or base excess but leads to higher hemoglobin levels.
Background: The most common technique used worldwide to quantify blood loss during an operation is the visual assessment by the attending intervention team. In every operating room you will find scaled suction canisters that collect fluids from the surgical field. This scaling is commonly used by clinicians for visual assessment of intraoperative blood loss. While many studies have been conducted to quantify and improve the inaccuracy of the visual estimation method, research has focused on the estimation of blood volume in surgical drapes. The question whether and how scaling of canisters correlates with actual blood loss and how accurately clinicians estimate blood loss in scaled canisters has not been the focus of research to date.
Methods: A simulation study with four “bleeding” scenarios was conducted using expired whole blood donations. After diluting the blood donations with full electrolyte solution, the sample blood loss volume (SBL) was transferred into suction canisters. The study participants then had to estimate the blood loss in all four scenarios. The difference to the reference blood loss (RBL) per scenario was analyzed.
Results: Fifty-three anesthetists participated in the study. The median estimated blood loss was 500 ml (IQR 300/1150) compared to the RBL median of 281.5 ml (IQR 210.0/1022.0). Overestimations up to 1233 ml were detected. Underestimations were also observed in the range of 138 ml. The visual estimate for canisters correlated moderately with RBL (Spearman’s rho: 0.818; p < 0.001). Results from univariate nonparametric confirmation statistics regarding visual estimation of canisters show that the deviation of the visual estimate of blood loss is significant (z = − 10.95, p < 0.001, n = 220). Participants’ experience level had no significant influence on VEBL (p = 0.402).
Conclusion: The discrepancies between the visual estimate of canisters and the actual blood loss are enormous despite the given scales. Therefore, we do not recommend estimating the blood loss visually in scaled suction canisters. Colorimetric blood loss estimation could be a more accurate option.