Abstract

BACKGROUND In traumatic bleeding, transfusion practice has shifted toward higher doses of platelets and plasma transfusion. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether a higher platelet-to-red blood cell (RBC) transfusion ratio improves mortality without worsening organ failure when compared with a lower ratio of platelet-to-RBC. METHODS Pubmed, Medline, and Embase were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in bleeding trauma patients (age ≥16 years) receiving platelet transfusion between 1946 until October 2020. High platelet:RBC ratio was defined as being the highest ratio within an included study. Primary outcome was 24 hour mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, thromboembolic events, organ failure, and correction of coagulopathy. RESULTS In total five RCTs (n = 1757 patients) were included. A high platelet:RBC compared with a low platelet:RBC ratio significantly improved 24 hour mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.69 [0.53-0.89]) and 30- day mortality (OR 0.78 [0.63-0.98]). There was no difference between platelet:RBC ratio groups in thromboembolic events and organ failure. Correction of coagulopathy was reported in five studies, in which platelet dose had no impact on trauma-induced coagulopathy. CONCLUSIONS In traumatic bleeding, a high platelet:RBC improves mortality as compared to low platelet:RBC ratio. The high platelet:RBC ratio does not influence thromboembolic or organ failure event rates.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Trial outcomes should be relevant to all stakeholders, and allow assessment of interventions' efficacy and safety at appropriate timeframes. There is no consensus regarding outcome measures in the growing field of pre-hospital trauma transfusion research. Harmonization of future clinical outcome reporting is key to facilitate inter-study comparisons and generate cohesive, robust evidence to guide practice. OBJECTIVES To evaluate outcome measures reported in pre-hospital trauma transfusion trials. METHODS Data Sources, Eligibility Criteria, Participants and InterventionsWe conducted a scoping systematic review to identify the type, number and definitions of outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective observational cohort studies investigating pre-hospital blood component transfusion in adult and paediatric patients with traumatic haemorrhage. Electronic database searching of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, OVID, clinical trials.gov, and the Transfusion Evidence Library was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsTwo review authors independently extracted outcome data. Unique lists of salutogenic (patient-reported health and wellbeing outcomes) and non-salutogenic focused outcomes were established. RESULTS 3,471 records were identified. 34 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria: four military (n = 1,566 patients) and 30 civilian (n = 14,398 patients), all between 2000 and 2020. 212 individual non-patient-reported outcomes were identified, which collapsed into 20 outcome domains with varied definitions and timings. All primary outcomes measured effectiveness, rather than safety or complications. 69% reported mortality, with 11 different definitions. No salutogenic outcomes were reported. LIMITATIONS The review is limited by a lack of high-grade prospective comparative trials with clear predefined primary outcomes. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS There is heterogeneity in outcome reporting and definitions, an absence of patient-reported outcome, and an emphasis on clinical effectiveness rather than safety or adverse events in pre-hospital trauma transfusion trials. We recommend stakeholder consultation and a Delphi process to develop a clearly defined minimum core outcome set for pre-hospital trauma transfusion trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131406). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II. STUDY TYPE Scoping Systematic Review.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Necrotising Enterocolitis (NEC) is a devastating neonatal disease. A temporal association between red cell transfusion and NEC has been recognized and there have been concerns about the effects of feeding during transfusion. We aimed to assess the effect of different enteral feeding regimens on splanchnic oxygenation in preterm infants receiving red cell transfusions. METHODS This was an open, multi-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial conducted in a single centre in Australia. We compared three different enteral feeding regimes during a single red cell transfusion in preterm infants < 35 weeks gestational age at birth. Infants were randomised to either: (1) Withholding enteral feeds for 12 h from the start of transfusion or; (2) Continuing enteral feeds or; (3) Restriction of enteral feed volume to 120 ml/kg/day (maximum 20 kcal/30 ml) for 12 h. The primary outcome was mean splanchnic-cerebral oxygenation ratio (SCOR) and mean splanchnic fractional oxygen extraction (FOE) before (1 h prior), during (1 h into transfusion) and after (end of transfusion; 12 and 24 h post) transfusion. RESULTS There were 60 transfusion episodes (20 transfusion episodes in each group) included in the analysis. 41 infants with a median gestational age at birth of 27 weeks (range 23-32 weeks) were enrolled. The median postnatal age was 43 days (range 19-94 days) and the median pre-transfusion haematocrit was 0.27 (range 0.22-0.32). All three groups were similar at baseline. There were no differences in mean SCOR and mean splanchnic FOE at any of the pre-specified time points. There were also no differences in clinical outcomes. There were no episodes of NEC in any infant. Across all groups the mean SCOR increased from the start to the end of each transfusion (0.97 [CI95% 0.96-0.98] vs 1.00 [CI95% 0.99-1.01]; p = 0.04) and the mean FOE decreased from the start to the end of each transfusion (0.22 [CI95% 0.21-0.23] vs 0.17 [CI95% 0.16-0.18]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS There were no differences in splanchnic oxygenation when enteral feeds were either withheld, continued or restricted during a transfusion. However, the successful conduct of this study supports the feasibility of a large trial powered to assess clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ANZCTR, ACTRN12616000160437. Registered 10 February 2016, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370069.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Laboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting. METHODS Five databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria. RESULTS We identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group. CONCLUSIONS Our review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42016051941.

Abstract

PURPOSE Estimated blood loss (EBL) is an important tool in clinical decision-making and surgical outcomes research. It guides perioperative transfusion practice and serves as a key predictor of short-term perioperative risks and long-term oncologic outcomes. Despite its widespread clinical and research use, there is no gold standard for blood loss estimation. We sought to systematically review and compare techniques for intraoperative blood loss estimation in major non-cardiac surgery with the objective of informing clinical estimation and research standards. SOURCE A structured search strategy was applied to Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 2020, to identify studies comparing methods of intraoperative blood loss in adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. We summarized agreement between groups of pairwise comparisons as visual estimation vs formula estimation, visual estimation vs other, and formula estimation vs other. For each of these comparisons, we described tendencies for higher or lower EBL values, consistency of findings, pooled mean differences, standard deviations, and confidence intervals. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS We included 26 studies involving 3,297 patients in this review. We found that visual estimation is the most frequently studied technique. In addition, visual techniques tended to provide lower EBL values than formula-based estimation or other techniques, though this effect was not statistically significant in pooled analyses likely due to sample size limitations. When accounting for the contextual mean blood loss, similar case-to-case variation exists for all estimation techniques. CONCLUSIONS We found that significant case-by-case variation exists for all methods of blood loss evaluation and that there is significant disagreement between techniques. Given the importance placed on EBL, particularly for perioperative prognostication models, clinicians should consider the universal adoption of a practical and reproducible method for blood loss evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD42015029439); registered: 18 November 2015.PROSPERO (CRD42015029439); registered: 18 November 2015.