1.
Why does a point of care guided transfusion algorithm not improve blood loss and transfusion practice in patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery? A prospective randomized controlled pilot study
Lehmann F, Rau J, Malcolm B, Sander M, von Heymann C, Moormann T, Geyer T, Balzer F, Wernecke KD, Kaufner L
BMC anesthesiology. 2019;19(1):24
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adult cardiac surgery is often complicated by elevated blood losses that account for elevated transfusion requirements. Perioperative bleeding and transfusion of blood products are major risk factors for morbidity and mortality. Timely diagnostic and goal-directed therapies aim at the reduction of bleeding and need for allogeneic transfusions. METHODS Single-centre, prospective, randomized trial assessing blood loss and transfusion requirements of 26 adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery at high risk for perioperative bleeding. Primary endpoint was blood loss at 24 h postoperatively. Random assignment to intra- and postoperative haemostatic management following either an algorithm based on conventional coagulation assays (conventional group: platelet count, aPTT, PT, fibrinogen) or based on point-of-care (PoC-group) monitoring, i.e. activated rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM(R)) combined with multiple aggregometry (Multiplate(R)). Differences between groups were analysed using nonparametric tests for independent samples. RESULTS The study was terminated after interim analysis (n = 26). Chest tube drainage volume was 360 ml (IQR 229-599 ml) in the conventional group, and 380 ml (IQR 310-590 ml) in the PoC-group (p = 0.767) after 24 h. Basic patient characteristics, results of PoC coagulation assays, and transfusion requirements of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma did not differ between groups. Coagulation results were comparable. Platelets were transfused in the PoC group only. CONCLUSION Blood loss via chest tube drainage and transfusion amounts were not different comparing PoC- and central lab-driven transfusion algorithms in subjects that underwent high-risk cardiac surgery. Routine PoC coagulation diagnostics do not seem to be beneficial when actual blood loss is low. High risk procedures might not suffice as a sole risk factor for increased blood loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT01402739 , Date of registration July 26, 2011.
2.
Recombinant activated factor VIIa for the treatment of bleeding in major abdominal surgery including vascular and urological surgery: a review and meta-analysis of published data
von Heymann C, Jonas S, Spies C, Wernecke KD, Ziemer S, Janssen D, Koscielny J
Critical Care. 2008;12((1):):R14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to determine the role of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) in abdominal, vascular, and urological surgery. METHODS We conducted meta-analyses of case series and placebo-controlled studies reporting on the treatment or prophylaxis of bleeding with rFVIIa regarding 'reduction or cessation of bleeding', 'mortality', and 'thromboembolism'. RESULTS All case reports (n = 15 case reports and 17 patients) documented an effect of rFVIIa in the treatment of bleeding. A meta-analysis of 10 case series revealed a reduction or cessation of bleeding in 39 out of 50 patients after administration of rFVIIa (estimated mean effect 73.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 51.0% to 95.4%) and a mean probability of survival of 53.0% (95% CI 26.4% to 79.7%). Among the rFVIIa responders, 19 out of 29 patients (66%) survived versus 1 out of 10 rFVIIa nonresponders (P = 0.003). Six out of 36 patients from the case series had a thromboembolic complication (estimated mean probability 16.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 31.8%). Compared with a meta-analysis of eight placebo-controlled studies, no increased risk of thromboembolism was seen after administration of rFVIIa. CONCLUSION The meta-analysis of case series showed that, in a mean of 73% patients, rFVIIa achieved at least a reduction of bleeding and that the probability of survival is increased in patients responding to rFVIIa. rFVIIa was not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism compared with placebo.