Cargando…
Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study
BACKGROUND: Adult cardiac surgery is often complicated by elevated blood losses that account for elevated transfusion requirements. Perioperative bleeding and transfusion of blood products are major risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Timely diagnostic and goal-directed therapies aim at the re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6379957/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30777015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0689-7 |
_version_ | 1783396219452653568 |
---|---|
author | Lehmann, F. Rau, J. Malcolm, B. Sander, M. von Heymann, C. Moormann, T. Geyer, T. Balzer, F. Wernecke, K. D. Kaufner, L. |
author_facet | Lehmann, F. Rau, J. Malcolm, B. Sander, M. von Heymann, C. Moormann, T. Geyer, T. Balzer, F. Wernecke, K. D. Kaufner, L. |
author_sort | Lehmann, F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Adult cardiac surgery is often complicated by elevated blood losses that account for elevated transfusion requirements. Perioperative bleeding and transfusion of blood products are major risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Timely diagnostic and goal-directed therapies aim at the reduction of bleeding and need for allogeneic transfusions. METHODS: Single-centre, prospective, randomized trial assessing blood loss and transfusion requirements of 26 adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery at high risk for perioperative bleeding. Primary endpoint was blood loss at 24 h postoperatively. Random assignment to intra- and postoperative haemostatic management following either an algorithm based on conventional coagulation assays (conventional group: platelet count, aPTT, PT, fibrinogen) or based on point-of-care (PoC-group) monitoring, i.e. activated rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) combined with multiple aggregometry (Multiplate®). Differences between groups were analysed using nonparametric tests for independent samples. RESULTS: The study was terminated after interim analysis (n = 26). Chest tube drainage volume was 360 ml (IQR 229-599 ml) in the conventional group, and 380 ml (IQR 310-590 ml) in the PoC-group (p = 0.767) after 24 h. Basic patient characteristics, results of PoC coagulation assays, and transfusion requirements of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma did not differ between groups. Coagulation results were comparable. Platelets were transfused in the PoC group only. CONCLUSION: Blood loss via chest tube drainage and transfusion amounts were not different comparing PoC- and central lab-driven transfusion algorithms in subjects that underwent high-risk cardiac surgery. Routine PoC coagulation diagnostics do not seem to be beneficial when actual blood loss is low. High risk procedures might not suffice as a sole risk factor for increased blood loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01402739, Date of registration July 26, 2011. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6379957 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63799572019-02-28 Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study Lehmann, F. Rau, J. Malcolm, B. Sander, M. von Heymann, C. Moormann, T. Geyer, T. Balzer, F. Wernecke, K. D. Kaufner, L. BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Adult cardiac surgery is often complicated by elevated blood losses that account for elevated transfusion requirements. Perioperative bleeding and transfusion of blood products are major risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Timely diagnostic and goal-directed therapies aim at the reduction of bleeding and need for allogeneic transfusions. METHODS: Single-centre, prospective, randomized trial assessing blood loss and transfusion requirements of 26 adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery at high risk for perioperative bleeding. Primary endpoint was blood loss at 24 h postoperatively. Random assignment to intra- and postoperative haemostatic management following either an algorithm based on conventional coagulation assays (conventional group: platelet count, aPTT, PT, fibrinogen) or based on point-of-care (PoC-group) monitoring, i.e. activated rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) combined with multiple aggregometry (Multiplate®). Differences between groups were analysed using nonparametric tests for independent samples. RESULTS: The study was terminated after interim analysis (n = 26). Chest tube drainage volume was 360 ml (IQR 229-599 ml) in the conventional group, and 380 ml (IQR 310-590 ml) in the PoC-group (p = 0.767) after 24 h. Basic patient characteristics, results of PoC coagulation assays, and transfusion requirements of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma did not differ between groups. Coagulation results were comparable. Platelets were transfused in the PoC group only. CONCLUSION: Blood loss via chest tube drainage and transfusion amounts were not different comparing PoC- and central lab-driven transfusion algorithms in subjects that underwent high-risk cardiac surgery. Routine PoC coagulation diagnostics do not seem to be beneficial when actual blood loss is low. High risk procedures might not suffice as a sole risk factor for increased blood loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01402739, Date of registration July 26, 2011. BioMed Central 2019-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6379957/ /pubmed/30777015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0689-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Lehmann, F. Rau, J. Malcolm, B. Sander, M. von Heymann, C. Moormann, T. Geyer, T. Balzer, F. Wernecke, K. D. Kaufner, L. Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study |
title | Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study |
title_full | Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study |
title_fullStr | Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study |
title_short | Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study |
title_sort | why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? a prospective randomized controlled pilot study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6379957/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30777015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-019-0689-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lehmannf whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT rauj whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT malcolmb whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT sanderm whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT vonheymannc whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT moormannt whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT geyert whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT balzerf whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT werneckekd whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy AT kaufnerl whydoesapointofcareguidedtransfusionalgorithmnotimprovebloodlossandtransfusionpracticeinpatientsundergoinghighriskcardiacsurgeryaprospectiverandomizedcontrolledpilotstudy |