Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Patient blood management (2)
- Blood loss estimation (1)
- Cell salvage (1)
- Colorimetric blood loss estimation (1)
- Direct measurement (1)
- Gravimetric method (1)
- In-line filtration (1)
- Inflammation (1)
- Infusion management (1)
- Intensive care (1)
Institute
- Medizin (5)
Background: To compare the effect of aprotinin with the effect of lysine analogues (tranexamic acid and ε-aminocaproic acid) on early mortality in three subgroups of patients: low, intermediate and high risk of cardiac surgery.
Methods and Findings: We performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational with the following data sources: Medline, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of identified articles. The primary outcome measure was early (in-hospital/30-day) mortality. The secondary outcome measures were any transfusion of packed red blood cells within 24 hours after surgery, any re-operation for bleeding or massive bleeding, and acute renal dysfunction or failure within the selected cited publications, respectively.
Out of 328 search results, 31 studies (15 trials and 16 observational studies) included 33,501 patients. Early mortality was significantly increased after aprotinin vs. lysine analogues with a pooled risk ratio (95% CI) of 1.58 (1.13–2.21), p<0.001 in the low (n = 14,297) and in the intermediate risk subgroup (1.42 (1.09–1.84), p<0.001; n = 14,427), respectively. Contrarily, in the subgroup of high risk patients (n = 4,777), the risk for mortality did not differ significantly between aprotinin and lysine analogues (1.03 (0.67–1.58), p = 0.90).
Conclusion: Aprotinin may be associated with an increased risk of mortality in low and intermediate risk cardiac surgery, but presumably may has no effect on early mortality in a subgroup of high risk cardiac surgery compared to lysine analogues. Thus, decisions to re-license aprotinin in lower risk patients should critically be debated. In contrast, aprotinin might probably be beneficial in high risk cardiac surgery as it reduces risk of transfusion and bleeding complications.
Background: Cell salvage is commonly used as part of a blood conservation strategy. However concerns among clinicians exist about the efficacy of transfusion of washed cell salvage.
Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in which patients, scheduled for all types of surgery, were randomized to washed cell salvage or to a control group with no cell salvage. Data were independently extracted, risk ratio (RR), and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The primary endpoint was the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.
Results: Out of 1140 search results, a total of 47 trials were included. Overall, the use of washed cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 39% (RR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.65; P < 0.001), resulting in an average saving of 0.20 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (weighted mean differences [WMD] = -0.20; 95% CI -0.22 to -0.18; P < 0.001), reduced risk of infection by 28% (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.97; P = 0.03), reduced length of hospital stay by 2.31 days (WMD = -2.31; 95% CI -2.50 to -2.11; P < 0.001), but did not significantly affect risk of mortality (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.34; P = 0.66). No statistical difference could be observed in the number of patients exposed to re-operation, plasma, platelets, or rate of myocardial infarction and stroke.
Conclusions: Washed cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic RBC transfusion and risk of infection in surgery.
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.
In-line filtration of intravenous infusion may reduce organ dysfunction of adult critical patients
(2019)
Background: The potential harmful effects of particle-contaminated infusions for critically ill adult patients are yet unclear. So far, only significant improved outcome in critically ill children and new-borns was demonstrated when using in-line filters, but for adult patients, evidence is still missing.
Methods: This single-centre, retrospective controlled cohort study assessed the effect of in-line filtration of intravenous fluids with finer 0.2 or 1.2 μm vs 5.0 μm filters in critically ill adult patients. From a total of n = 3215 adult patients, n = 3012 patients were selected by propensity score matching (adjusting for sex, age, and surgery group) and assigned to either a fine filter cohort (with 0.2/1.2 μm filters, n = 1506, time period from February 2013 to January 2014) or a control filter cohort (with 5.0 μm filters, n = 1506, time period from April 2014 to March 2015). The cohorts were compared regarding the occurrence of severe vasoplegia, organ dysfunctions (lung, kidney, and brain), inflammation, in-hospital complications (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, pneumonia, and sepsis), in-hospital mortality, and length of ICU and hospital stay.
Results: Comparing fine filter vs control filter cohort, respiratory dysfunction (Horowitz index 206 (119–290) vs 191 (104.75–280); P = 0.04), pneumonia (11.4% vs 14.4%; P = 0.02), sepsis (9.6% vs 12.2%; P = 0.03), interleukin-6 (471.5 (258.8–1062.8) ng/l vs 540.5 (284.5–1147.5) ng/l; P = 0.01), and length of ICU (1.2 (0.6–4.9) vs 1.7 (0.8–6.9) days; P < 0.01) and hospital stay (14.0 (9.2–22.2) vs 14.8 (10.0–26.8) days; P = 0.01) were reduced. Rate of severe vasoplegia (21.0% vs 19.6%; P > 0.20) and acute kidney injury (11.8% vs 13.7%; P = 0.11) was not significantly different between the cohorts.
Conclusions: In-line filtration with finer 0.2 and 1.2 μm filters may be associated with less organ dysfunction and less inflammation in critically ill adult patients.
Trial registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT02281604).
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.