Should Cell Salvage be Used in Liver Resection and Transplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Annals of surgery. 2022
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) use on red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and postoperative outcomes in liver surgery. BACKGROUND Intraoperative RBC transfusions are common in liver surgery and associated with increased morbidity. IBSA can be utilized to minimize allogeneic transfusion. A theoretical risk of cancer dissemination has limited IBSA adoption in oncologic surgery. METHODS Electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2021. All studies comparing IBSA use to control in liver surgery were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently, in duplicate. The primary outcome was intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion (proportion of patients and volume of blood transfused). Core secondary outcomes included: overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), transfusion-related complications, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty-one observational studies were included (16 transplant, 5 resection, n=3,433 patients). Seventeen studies incorporated oncologic indications. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic RBC transfusion (MD -1.81, 95% CI[-3.22, -0.40], P=0.01, I2=86%, very-low certainty). Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. No significant difference existed in OS or DFS in liver transplant (HR=1.12[0.75, 1.68], P=0.59, I2=0%; HR=0.93[0.57, 1.48], P=0.75, I2=0%) and liver resection (HR=0.69[0.45, 1.05], P=0.08, I2=0%; HR=0.93[0.59, 1.45], P=0.74, I2=0%). CONCLUSION IBSA may reduce intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion without compromising oncologic outcomes. The current evidence base is limited in size and quality, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.
Cardiopulmonary interventions to decrease blood loss and blood transfusion requirements for liver resection
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;5:CD007338
BACKGROUND Blood loss during liver resection is considered one of the most important factors affecting the peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing liver resection. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of cardiopulmonary interventions to decrease blood loss and to decrease allogeneic blood transfusion requirements in patients undergoing liver resections. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2012 to identify randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised clinical trials comparing various cardiopulmonary interventions aimed at decreasing blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion requirements in patients undergoing liver resection. Trials were included irrespective of whether they included major or minor liver resections of normal or cirrhotic livers, vascular occlusion was used or not, and irrespective of the reason for liver resection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently identified trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis or available case analysis. For dichotomous outcomes with only one trial included under the outcome, we performed the Fisher's exact test. MAIN RESULTS Ten trials involving 617 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. The interventions included low central venous pressure (CVP), autologous blood donation, haemodilution, haemodilution with controlled hypotension, and hypoventilation. Only one or two trials were included under most comparisons. All trials had a high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the peri-operative mortality in any of the comparisons: low CVP versus no intervention (3 trials, 0/88 (0%) patients in the low CVP group versus 1/89 (1.1%) patients in the no intervention group); autologous blood donation versus no intervention (1 trial, 0/40 (0%) versus 0/39 (0%)); haemodilution versus no intervention (2 trials, 1/73 (1.4%) versus 3/77 (3.9%) in one of these trials); haemodilution with controlled hypotension versus no intervention (1 trial, 0/10 (0%) versus 0/10 (0%)); haemodilution with bovine haemoglobin (HBOC-201) versus haemodilution with hydroxy ethyl starch (HES) (1 trial, 1/6 (16.7%) versus 0/6 (0%)); hypoventilation versus no intervention (1 trial, 0/40 (0%) versus 0/39 (0%)). None of the trials reported long-term survival or quality of life. The risk ratio of requiring allogeneic blood transfusion was significantly lower in the haemodilution versus no intervention groups (3 trials, 16/115 (weighted proportion = 14.2%) versus 41/118 (34.7%), RR 0.41 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.66), P = 0.0003); and for haemodilution with controlled hypotension versus no intervention (1 trial, 0/10 (0%) versus 10/10 (100%), P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the allogeneic transfusion requirements in the other comparisons which reported this outcome, such as low CVP versus no intervention, autologous blood donation versus control, and hypoventilation versus no intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS None of the interventions seemed to decrease peri-operative morbidity or offer any long-term survival benefit. Haemodilution shows promise in the reduction of blood transfusion requirements in liver resection surgery. However, there is a high risk of type I (erroneously concluding that an intervention is beneficial when it is actually not beneficial) and type II errors (erroneously concluding that an intervention is not beneficial when it is actually beneficial) because of the few trials included, the small sample size in each trial, and the high risk of bias in the trials. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk o
The role of cell salvage autotransfusion in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2011;42((5):):577-84.
OBJECTIVE Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs, both elective and rupture, are associated with significant blood loss often requiring transfusion. Cell-salvage autotransfusion has been developed to reduce the need for allogeneic blood. We review the literature to delineate the role of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood use in open AAA repairs. METHODS A systematic search of the English-language literature was performed using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to August 2010. RESULTS Twenty-three studies were identified. Whilst some data are conflicting, cell salvage appears to reduce overall use and exposure to allogeneic blood, and reduces length of intensive care unit and hospital stay after elective AAA repairs. There may be additional benefit by combining cell salvage with other blood-conservation techniques. Use of cell salvage in ruptured AAA repairs consistently reduced blood-product requirements. CONCLUSIONS Cell salvage appears to reduce blood-product use in both elective and rupture AAA repairs. Owing to the heterogeneity in methodology of published data, further study may be required before cell salvage becomes standard practice in open AAA repairs. Copyright 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.