1.
Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery
Lloyd, T. D., Geneen, L. J., Bernhardt, K., McClune, W., Fernquest, S. J., Brown, T., Dorée, C., Brunskill, S. J., Murphy, M. F., Palmer, A. J.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;9(9):Cd001888
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Concerns regarding the safety and availability of transfused donor blood have prompted research into a range of techniques to minimise allogeneic transfusion requirements. Cell salvage (CS) describes the recovery of blood from the surgical field, either during or after surgery, for reinfusion back to the patient. OBJECTIVES To examine the effectiveness of CS in minimising perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and on other clinical outcomes in adults undergoing elective or non-urgent surgery. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two clinical trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews from 2009 (date of previous search) to 19 January 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs assessing the use of CS compared to no CS in adults (participants aged 18 or over, or using the study's definition of adult) undergoing elective (non-urgent) surgery only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included 106 RCTs, incorporating data from 14,528 participants, reported in studies conducted in 24 countries. Results were published between 1978 and 2021. We analysed all data according to a single comparison: CS versus no CS. We separated analyses by type of surgery. The certainty of the evidence varied from very low certainty to high certainty. Reasons for downgrading the certainty included imprecision (small sample sizes below the optimal information size required to detect a difference, and wide confidence intervals), inconsistency (high statistical heterogeneity), and risk of bias (high risk from domains including sequence generation, blinding, and baseline imbalances). Aggregate analysis (all surgeries combined: primary outcome only) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.72; 82 RCTs, 12,520 participants). Cancer: 2 RCTs (79 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for mortality, blood loss, infection, or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Cardiovascular (vascular): 6 RCTs (384 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for most outcomes. No data were reported for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Cardiovascular (no bypass): 6 RCTs (372 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 3 RCTs, 169 participants). Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for volume transfused, blood loss, mortality, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospital length of stay (LOS). There were no analysable data reported for thrombosis, DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), and MACE. Cardiovascular (with bypass): 29 RCTs (2936 participants) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS, and suggests there may be no difference in risk of infection and hospital LOS. Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a reduction in volume transfused because of CS, or if there is any difference for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, wound complication, thrombosis, DVT, PE, MACE, and MI, and probably no difference in risk of stroke. Obstetrics: 1 RCT (1356 participants) High-certainty evidence shows there is no difference between groups for mean volume of allogeneic blood transfused (mean difference (MD) -0.02 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 1 RCT, 1349 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for risk of allogeneic transfusion. There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Orthopaedic (hip only): 17 RCTs (2055 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, or if there is any difference between groups for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), thrombosis, DVT, PE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for MACE and MI. Orthopaedic (knee only): 26 RCTs (2568 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, and whether there is a difference for blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, PJI, DVT, PE, MI, MACE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for mortality and thrombosis. Orthopaedic (spine only): 6 RCTs (404 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; 3 RCTs, 194 participants). Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for volume transfused, blood loss, infection, wound complication, and PE. There were no analysable data reported for mortality, re-operation for bleeding, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MACE, MI, stroke, and hospital LOS. Orthopaedic (mixed): 14 RCTs (4374 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS, or if there is any difference between groups for volume transfused, mortality, blood loss, infection, wound complication, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MI, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for re-operation for bleeding, MACE, and stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In some types of elective surgery, cell salvage may reduce the need for and volume of allogeneic transfusion, alongside evidence of no difference in adverse events, when compared to no cell salvage. Further research is required to establish why other surgeries show no benefit from CS, through further analysis of the current evidence. More large RCTs in under-reported specialities are needed to expand the evidence base for exploring the impact of CS.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults undergoing elective surgery (106 randomised controlled trials, n= 14,528).
Intervention
Intraoperative red blood cell salvage (CS).
Comparison
No CS (usual care).
Outcome
Cancer surgery (2 studies, n= 79) and vascular surgery (6 studies, n= 384): there is inconclusive evidence of the impact of cell salvage. Heart surgery without bypass (6 studies, n= 372): there is probably a reduction in the risk of needing a transfusion of donated blood because of cell salvage. Heart surgery with bypass (29 studies, n= 2,936): there may be a reduction in the risk of needing a transfusion of donated blood because of cell salvage. Caesarean section (1 study, n= 1,356): inconclusive evidence suggests there may be no difference in the risk of needing a transfusion of donated blood, alongside strong evidence that suggests there is no difference in the average amount of donated blood that is needed by the patient, because of cell salvage. Hip replacement surgery (17 studies, n= 2,055) and knee replacement surgery (26 studies, n= 2,568): there is inconclusive evidence of the impact of cell salvage. Spinal surgery (6 studies, n= 404): there is probably a reduction in the risk of needing a transfusion of donated blood because of cell salvage.
2.
Effect of Autotransfusion in HCC Surgery on Survival and Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Murtha-Lemekhova A, Fuchs J, Ritscher E, Hoffmann K
Cancers. 2022;14(19)
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND The chronic blood shortage has forced clinicians to seek alternatives to allogeneic blood transfusions during surgery. Due to anatomic uniqueness resulting in a vast vasculature, liver surgery can lead to significant blood loss, and an estimated 30% of patients require blood transfusions in major hepatectomy. Allogeneic transfusion harbors the risk of an immunologic reaction. However, the hesitation to reinfuse a patient's own blood during cancer surgery is reinforced by the potentiality of reintroducing and disseminating tumor cells into an individual undergoing curative treatment. Two methods of autotransfusions are common: autotransfusion after preoperative blood donation and intraoperative blood salvage (IBS). We aim to investigate the effect of autotransfusion on recurrence and survival rates of patients undergoing surgery for HCC. METHODS The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO prior to data extraction. MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for publications on liver surgery and blood salvage (autologous transfusion or intraoperative blood salvage). Comparative studies were included. Outcomes focused on long-term oncologic status and mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) estimated outcomes with a fixed-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE. Separate analyses were performed for liver transplantation and hepatectomies. RESULTS Fifteen studies were included in the analysis (nine on transplantation and six on hepatectomies), and they comprised 2052 patients. Overall survival was comparable between patients who received intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) or not for liver transplantation (HR 1.13, 95% CI [0.89, 1.42] p = 0.31). Disease-free survival also was comparable (HR 0.97, 95% CI [0.76, 1.24], p = 0.83). Autotransfusion after prior donation was predominantly used in hepatectomy. Patients who received autotransfusion had a significantly better overall survival than the control (HR 0.71, 95% CI [0.58, 0.88], p = 0.002). Disease-free survival was also significantly higher in patients with autotransfusion (HR 0.88, 95% CI [0.80, 0.96], p = 0.005). Although overall, the certainty of evidence is low and included studies exhibited methodological heterogeneity, the heterogeneity of outcomes was low to moderate. CONCLUSION Autotransfusion, including intraoperative blood salvage, does not adversely affect the overall or disease-free survival of patients with HCC undergoing resection or transplantation. The results of this meta-analysis justify a randomized-controlled trial regarding the feasibility and potential benefits of autotransfusion in HCC surgery.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients undergoing liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma (15 studies, n= 2,052).
Intervention
Autologous transfusion (including intraoperative blood salvage).
Comparison
No autologous transfusion.
Outcome
Overall survival was comparable between patients who received intraoperative blood salvage or not for liver transplantation (Hazard ratio (HR): 1.13, 95% CI: 0.89-1.42). Disease-free survival also was comparable (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.76-1.24). Autotransfusion after prior donation was predominantly used in hepatectomy. Patients who received autotransfusion had a significantly better overall survival than the control (HR, 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.88). Disease-free survival was also significantly higher in patients with autotransfusion (HR, 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96). Although overall, the certainty of evidence is low and included studies exhibited methodological heterogeneity, the heterogeneity of outcomes was low to moderate.
3.
Should Cell Salvage be Used in Liver Resection and Transplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Rajendran L, Lenet T, Shorr R, Abou Khalil J, Bertens KA, Balaa FK, Martel G
Annals of surgery. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
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.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients undergoing oncologic and non-oncologic liver surgery (either resection or transplantation), (21 studies, n= 3,433).
Intervention
Any intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) device.
Comparison
No IBSA use.
Outcome
Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Despite significant heterogeneity, most studies reported lower rates and volumes of intraoperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing IBSA. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (mean difference: -1.81, very-low certainty). Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in overall survival or disease-free survival in liver transplant and liver resection.
4.
Efficacy of intraoperative cell salvage in spine surgery: a meta-analysis
Cheriyan J, Cheriyan T, Dua A, Goldstein JA, Errico TJ, Kumar V
J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;:1-9
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Intraoperative cell salvage systems, or cell savers, are widely used for the management of blood loss in patients undergoing spine surgery. However, recent studies report conflicting evidence of their efficacy. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of cell savers in reducing blood transfusion requirements in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS Both retrospective and prospective studies that investigated the efficacy of cell savers in reducing transfusion requirements in spine surgery patients when compared with control patients were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration Library, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. Outcome data extracted included number of patients receiving allogenic transfusions (transfusion rate); units of allogenic transfusions; postoperative hemoglobin; costs; operative time; and complications. RevMan 5 software was used to perform statistical analyses. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (with 95% CIs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs [95% CI]) for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS Eighteen studies with 2815 patients in total were included in the meta-analysis. During spine surgery, the use of intraoperative cell salvage did not reduce the intraoperative (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.30, 1.41]), postoperative (OR -0.57 [95% CI 0.20, 1.59]), or total transfusion (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.43, 1.98]) rate. There was a reduction in the number of allogenic units transfused intraoperatively by a mean of 0.81 (95% CI -1.15, -0.48). However, there were no differences in the number of units transfused postoperatively (WMD -0.02 [95% CI -0.41, 0.38]) or the total units transfused (WMD 0.08 [95% CI -1.06, 1.22]). There were also no differences in operative time (WMD 19.36 [95% CI -2.43, 42.15]) or complications reported (OR 0.79 [95% CI 0.46, 1.37]) between groups. A difference in postoperative hemoglobin (WMD 0.54 [95% CI 0.11, 0.98]) between both groups was observed. CONCLUSIONS Cell saver is efficacious at reducing intraoperative allogenic units transfused. There is no difference in transfusion rates, postoperative units transfused, and the total number of units transfused. Further cost analysis studies are necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this method of blood conservation. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE Type of question: therapeutic; study design: meta-analysis; strength of recommendation: low.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients undergoing spine surgery (18 studies, n=2815).
Intervention
Use of intraoperative cell salvage.
Comparison
Control.
Outcome
The use of intraoperative cell salvage did not reduce the intraoperative, or total transfusion rate. There was a reduction in the number of allogenic units transfused intraoperatively by a mean of 0.81. However, there were no differences in the number of units transfused postoperatively or the total units transfused. There were also no differences in operative time or complications reported between groups. A difference in postoperative hemoglobin between both groups was observed.