1.
Safety of Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Cancer Surgery: An Updated Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature
Frietsch T, Steinbicker AU, Horn A, Metz M, Dietrich G, Weigand MA, Waters JH, Fischer D
Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie. 2022;49(3):143-157
Abstract
BACKGROUND Allogeneic blood transfusions in oncologic surgery are associated with increased recurrence and mortality. Adverse effects on outcome could be reduced or avoided by using intraoperative autologous blood cell salvage (IOCS). However, there are concerns regarding the safety of the autologous IOCS blood. Previous meta-analyses from 2012 and 2020 did not identify increased risk of cancer recurrence after using autologous IOCS blood. The objective of this review was to reassess a greater number of IOCS-treated patients to present an updated and more robust analysis of the current literature. METHODS This systematic review includes full-text articles listed in PubMed, Cochrane, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science. We analyzed publications that discussed cell salvage or autotransfusion combined with the following outcomes: cancer recurrence, mortality, survival, allogeneic transfusion rate and requirements, length of hospital stay (LOS). To rate the strength of evidence, a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) of the underlying evidence was applied. RESULTS In the updated meta-analysis, 7 further observational studies were added to the original 27 observational studies included in the former 2020 analysis. Studies compared either unfiltered (n = 2,311) or filtered (n = 850) IOCS (total n = 3,161) versus non-IOCS use (n = 5,342). Control patients were either treated with autologous predonated blood (n = 484), with allogeneic transfusion (n = 4,113), or did not receive a blood transfusion (n = 745). However, the current literature still contains only observational studies on these topics, and the strength of evidence remains low. The risk of cancer recurrence was reduced in recipients of autologous salvaged blood with or without LDF (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.90) compared to nontransfused patients or patients with allogeneic transfusion. There was no difference in mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71-1.27) and LOS (mean difference -0.07 days, 95% CI: -0.63 to 0.48) between patients treated with IOCS blood or those in whom IOCS was not used. Due to high heterogeneity, transfusion rates or volumes could not be analyzed. CONCLUSION Randomized controlled trials comparing mortality and cancer recurrence rate of IOCS with or without LDF filtration versus allogeneic blood transfusion were not found. Outcome was similar or better in patients receiving IOCS during cancer surgery compared to patients with allogeneic blood transfusion or nontransfused patients.
2.
Blood salvage and cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of available studies
Waters JH, Yazer M, Chen YF, Kloke J
Transfusion. 2012;52((10):):2167-73.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) is a technique that is frequently used in major blood loss surgery. Classically, it is avoided during cancer surgery where a fear exists of entraining cancer cells into the shed blood. In this study, all reports of this practice were collected to determine if this fear is warranted. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A literature search was performed including the search phrases "blood salvage,""intraoperative blood salvage,""cell salvage,""cell saver,""cell saving,""autotransfusion," and "autologous transfusion." Data extracted from suitable papers included the authors' names, publication year, cancer type, exclusion criteria, sample size, length of follow-up, and the mean patient age. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was a comparison of the odds ratio (OR) for cancer recurrence or the development of metastases. RESULTS Eleven studies were included in the analysis. The pooled summary of the OR was 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.98; p = 0.0391) using a random-effects model. Measures of heterogeneity, Q-statistics (p= 0.1615) and I(2) (30.90%), did not indicate a high degree of between-study variability. CONCLUSIONS While significant variability existed between studies, this meta-analysis suggests that outcomes after the use of IBS are not inferior to traditional intraoperative allogeneic transfusion. An adequately powered prospective, randomized trial of IBS use is required to determine its true risk during cancer surgery. 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.