1.
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.
2.
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Intraoperative Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategies
Lenet T, Baker L, Park L, Vered M, Zahrai A, Shorr R, Davis A, McIsaac DI, Tinmouth A, Fergusson DA, et al
Annals of surgery. 2021
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this work was to carry out a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing intraoperative RBC transfusion strategies to determine their impact on postoperative morbidity, mortality, and blood product use. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA RBC transfusions are common in surgery and associated with widespread variability despite adjustment for casemix. Evidence-based recommendations guiding RBC transfusion in the operative setting are limited. METHODS The search strategy was adapted from a previous Cochrane Review. Electronic databases were searched from January 2016 to February 2021. Included studies from the previous Cochrane Review were considered for eligibility from before 2016. RCTs comparing intraoperative transfusion strategies were considered for inclusion. Co-primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and perioperative RBC transfusion. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models. RESULTS Fourteen trials (8641 patients) were included. One cardiac surgery trial accounted for 56% of patients. There was no difference in 30-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.29] and pooled postoperative morbidity among the studied outcomes when comparing restrictive and liberal protocols. Two trials reported worse composite outcomes with restrictive triggers. Intraoperative (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.64) and perioperative (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79) blood transfusions were significantly lower in the restrictive group compared to the liberal group. CONCLUSIONS Intraoperative restrictive transfusion strategies decreased perioperative transfusions without added postoperative morbidity and mortality in 12/14 trials. Two trials reported worse outcomes. Given trial design and generalizability limitations, uncertainty remains regarding the safety of broad application of restrictive transfusion triggers in the operating room. Trials specifically designed to address intraoperative transfusions are urgently needed.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult patients undergoing surgery (14 studies, n= 8,641).
Intervention
Restrictive blood transfusion strategy.
Comparison
Liberal blood transfusion strategy.
Outcome
There was no difference in 30-day mortality relative risk (RR) 0.96, and pooled postoperative morbidity among the studied outcomes when comparing restrictive and liberal protocols. Two trials reported worse composite outcomes with restrictive triggers. Intraoperative (RR 0.53) and perioperative (RR 0.70) blood transfusions were significantly lower in the restrictive group compared to the liberal group.
3.
Techniques for blood loss estimation in major non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Tran A, Heuser J, Ramsay T, McIsaac DM, Martel G
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie. 2020
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
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.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery (26 studies, n= 3,297).
Intervention
Visual estimation of blood loss.
Comparison
Formula estimation of blood loss, and other tecnniques for estimating blood loss.
Outcome
Visual estimation was the most frequently studied technique. Visual techniques tended to provide lower estimated blood loss values than formula-based estimation or other techniques, though this effect was not statistically significant in pooled analyses. When accounting for the contextual mean blood loss, similar case-to-case variation existed for all estimation techniques.