Transfusion Protocols Compared After Cardiac Surgery
By LabMedica International staff writers Posted on 25 Mar 2015 |
Image: Plastic bag containing 0.5 to 0.7 liters of packed red blood cells in citrate, phosphate, dextrose, and adenine (CPDA) solution (Photo courtesy of Fresenius HemoCare).
Unnecessary blood transfusions may increase healthcare costs both directly, because blood is an increasingly scarce and expensive resource, and indirectly due to the complications associated with transfusion.
Cardiac surgery patients who receive blood transfusions are believed to have more complications such as infections, heart attacks and strokes, and this has led to speculation that avoidance of transfusion will improve clinical outcomes.
A team of scientists led by those at the University of Bristol (UK) and those at Nuffield Department of Population Health (Oxford, UK) recruited patients over 16 years of age undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery to the clinical trial at 17 UK hospitals. Participants with a hemoglobin (Hb) level of less than 9 g/dL after their operations were randomized to have a transfusion either when they became substantially anemic (transfuse when Hb is “low,” i.e., less than 7.5 g/dL) or straightaway, when they were mildly anemic (transfuse when Hb is “high,” i.e., less than 9 g/dL).
To compare the two transfusion strategies the medical team counted the number of patients who had a serious infection, stroke, heart attack, gut or kidney failure during the first three months after the operation. The trial analyzed information for 2,003 participants, about four times more than the next largest similar trial of low and high thresholds for transfusion in patients having heart surgery.
The scientists found almost all the patients in the “high” group had a blood transfusion (92%) whereas just over half of the patients in the “low” group had a blood transfusion (53%). Slightly more patients had one or more of the serious complications listed above in the “low” group (35%) than the “high” group (33%). Moreover, more patients died in the “low” group (4.2%) than the “high” group (2.6%). This latter finding is clearly very important but it is difficult to interpret because the trial was not primarily designed to compare the difference in the number of deaths. The restrictive threshold was not superior to the liberal threshold with respect to postoperative morbidity or total costs.
Barnaby C Reeves, DPhil, MSc, MFPHM, a professor and lead author of the study, said, “Although only a hypothesis, the suggestion that it might be better rather than worse to transfuse patients who are only mildly anemic goes against the evidence about when to transfuse in non-cardiac surgery settings. Transfusing more rather than fewer patients would create a challenge for hospitals. With an aging population and possibly an increase in heart disease, obesity and diabetes, it can only become more difficult in the future to maintain the national blood supply in the UK and in other developed countries around the world. Our findings emphasize the importance of interventions to reduce blood loss in the first place.” The study was published on March 12, 2015, in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Related Links:
University of Bristol
Nuffield Department of Population Health
Cardiac surgery patients who receive blood transfusions are believed to have more complications such as infections, heart attacks and strokes, and this has led to speculation that avoidance of transfusion will improve clinical outcomes.
A team of scientists led by those at the University of Bristol (UK) and those at Nuffield Department of Population Health (Oxford, UK) recruited patients over 16 years of age undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery to the clinical trial at 17 UK hospitals. Participants with a hemoglobin (Hb) level of less than 9 g/dL after their operations were randomized to have a transfusion either when they became substantially anemic (transfuse when Hb is “low,” i.e., less than 7.5 g/dL) or straightaway, when they were mildly anemic (transfuse when Hb is “high,” i.e., less than 9 g/dL).
To compare the two transfusion strategies the medical team counted the number of patients who had a serious infection, stroke, heart attack, gut or kidney failure during the first three months after the operation. The trial analyzed information for 2,003 participants, about four times more than the next largest similar trial of low and high thresholds for transfusion in patients having heart surgery.
The scientists found almost all the patients in the “high” group had a blood transfusion (92%) whereas just over half of the patients in the “low” group had a blood transfusion (53%). Slightly more patients had one or more of the serious complications listed above in the “low” group (35%) than the “high” group (33%). Moreover, more patients died in the “low” group (4.2%) than the “high” group (2.6%). This latter finding is clearly very important but it is difficult to interpret because the trial was not primarily designed to compare the difference in the number of deaths. The restrictive threshold was not superior to the liberal threshold with respect to postoperative morbidity or total costs.
Barnaby C Reeves, DPhil, MSc, MFPHM, a professor and lead author of the study, said, “Although only a hypothesis, the suggestion that it might be better rather than worse to transfuse patients who are only mildly anemic goes against the evidence about when to transfuse in non-cardiac surgery settings. Transfusing more rather than fewer patients would create a challenge for hospitals. With an aging population and possibly an increase in heart disease, obesity and diabetes, it can only become more difficult in the future to maintain the national blood supply in the UK and in other developed countries around the world. Our findings emphasize the importance of interventions to reduce blood loss in the first place.” The study was published on March 12, 2015, in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Related Links:
University of Bristol
Nuffield Department of Population Health
Latest Hematology News
- Next Generation Instrument Screens for Hemoglobin Disorders in Newborns
- First 4-in-1 Nucleic Acid Test for Arbovirus Screening to Reduce Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Infections
- POC Finger-Prick Blood Test Determines Risk of Neutropenic Sepsis in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy
- First Affordable and Rapid Test for Beta Thalassemia Demonstrates 99% Diagnostic Accuracy
- Handheld White Blood Cell Tracker to Enable Rapid Testing For Infections
- Smart Palm-size Optofluidic Hematology Analyzer Enables POCT of Patients’ Blood Cells
- Automated Hematology Platform Offers High Throughput Analytical Performance
- New Tool Analyzes Blood Platelets Faster, Easily and Accurately
- First Rapid-Result Hematology Analyzer Reports Measures of Infection and Severity at POC
- Bleeding Risk Diagnostic Test to Reduce Preventable Complications in Hospitals
- True POC Hematology Analyzer with Direct Capillary Sampling Enhances Ease-of-Use and Testing Throughput
- Point of Care CBC Analyzer with Direct Capillary Sampling Enhances Ease-of-Use and Testing Throughput
- Blood Test Could Predict Outcomes in Emergency Department and Hospital Admissions
- Novel Technology Diagnoses Immunothrombosis Using Breath Gas Analysis
- Advanced Hematology System Allows Labs to Process Up To 119 Complete Blood Count Results per Hour
- Unique AI-Based Approach Automates Clinical Analysis of Blood Data