Abstract

BACKGROUND Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS This report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS For this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74). CONCLUSIONS Hospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Abstract

Patient Blood Management (PBM) is an evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centred approach to optimizing the care of patients who might need a blood transfusion. This systematic review aimed to collect the best available evidence on the effectiveness of preoperative iron supplementation with or without erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on red blood cell (RBC) utilization in all-cause anaemic patients scheduled for elective surgery. Five databases and two trial registries were screened. Primary outcomes were the number of patients and the number of RBC units transfused. Effect estimates were synthesized by conducting meta-analyses. GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. We identified 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-RCTs comparing the effectiveness of preoperative iron monotherapy, or iron + ESAs, to control (no treatment, usual care, placebo). We found that: (1) IV and/or oral iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of units transfused and IV iron may not reduce the number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (2) uncertainty exists whether the administration route of iron therapy (IV vs oral) differentially affects RBC utilization (very low-certainty evidence); (3) IV ferric carboxymaltose monotherapy may not result in a different number of patients transfused compared to IV iron sucrose monotherapy (low-certainty evidence); (4) oral iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of patients transfused and number of units transfused (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) IV iron + ESAs may result in a reduced number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (6) oral and/or IV iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of RBC units transfused in transfused patients (moderate-certainty evidence); (7) uncertainty exists about the effect of oral and/or IV iron + ESAs on the number of patients requiring transfusion of multiple units (very low-certainty evidence). Effect estimates of different haematological parameters and length of stay were synthesized as secondary outcomes. In conclusion, in patients with anaemia of any cause scheduled for elective surgery, the preoperative administration of iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of patients or units transfused (low-certainty evidence). Iron supplementation in addition to ESAs probably results in a reduced RBC utilization (moderate-certainty evidence).

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an efficient antifibrinolytic agent; however, concerns remain about the potential adverse effects, particularly vascular occlusive events, that may be associated with its use. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between intravenous TXA and total thromboembolic events (TEs) and mortality in patients of all ages and of any medical disciplines. DATA SOURCE Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE were searched for eligible studies investigating intravenous TXA and postinterventional outcome published between 1976 and 2020. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials comparing intravenous TXA with placebo/no treatment. The electronic database search yielded a total of 782 studies, and 381 were considered for full-text review. Included studies were published in English, German, French, and Spanish. Studies with only oral or topical tranexamic administration were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Meta-analysis, subgroup and sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression were performed. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Vascular occlusive events and mortality. RESULTS A total of 216 eligible trials including 125 550 patients were analyzed. Total TEs were found in 1020 (2.1%) in the group receiving TXA and 900 (2.0%) in the control group. This study found no association between TXA and risk for total TEs (risk difference = 0.001; 95% CI, -0.001 to 0.002; P = .49) for venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous TEs, myocardial infarction or ischemia, and cerebral infarction or ischemia. Sensitivity analysis using the risk ratio as an effect measure with (risk ratio = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11; P = .56) and without (risk ratio = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.12; P = .52) studies with double-zero events revealed robust effect size estimates. Sensitivity analysis with studies judged at low risk for selection bias showed similar results. Administration of TXA was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality and bleeding mortality but not with nonbleeding mortality. In addition, an increased risk for vascular occlusive events was not found in studies including patients with a history of thromboembolism. Comparison of studies with sample sizes of less than or equal to 99 (risk difference = 0.004; 95% CI, -0.006 to 0.014; P = .40), 100 to 999 (risk difference = 0.004; 95% CI, -0.003 to 0.011; P = .26), and greater than or equal to 1000 (risk difference = -0.001; 95% CI, -0.003 to 0.001; P = .44) showed no association between TXA and incidence of total TEs. Meta-regression of 143 intervention groups showed no association between TXA dosing and risk for venous TEs (risk difference, -0.005; 95% CI, -0.021 to 0.011; P = .53). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis of 216 studies suggested that intravenous TXA, irrespective of dosing, is not associated with increased risk of any TE. These results help clarify the incidence of adverse events associated with administration of intravenous TXA and suggest that TXA is safe for use with undetermined utility for patients receiving neurological care.

Abstract

BACKGROUND COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. RESULTS Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.15-2.74). CONCLUSIONS Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.

Abstract

Estimating intraoperative blood loss is one of the daily challenges for clinicians. Despite the knowledge of the inaccuracy of visual estimation by anaesthetists and surgeons, this is still the mainstay to estimate surgical blood loss. This review aims at highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of currently used measurement methods. A systematic review of studies on estimation of blood loss was carried out. Studies were included investigating the accuracy of techniques for quantifying blood loss in vivo and in vitro. We excluded nonhuman trials and studies using only monitoring parameters to estimate blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate systematic measurement errors of the different methods. Only studies that were compared with a validated reference e.g. Haemoglobin extraction assay were included. 90 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and were analyzed. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, as only these were conducted with a validated reference. The mixed effect meta-analysis showed the highest correlation to the reference for colorimetric methods (0.93 95% CI 0.91-0.96), followed by gravimetric (0.77 95% CI 0.61-0.93) and finally visual methods (0.61 95% CI 0.40-0.82). The bias for estimated blood loss (ml) was lowest for colorimetric methods (57.59 95% CI 23.88-91.3) compared to the reference, followed by gravimetric (326.36 95% CI 201.65-450.86) and visual methods (456.51 95% CI 395.19-517.83). Of the many studies included, only a few were compared with a validated reference. The majority of the studies chose known imprecise procedures as the method of comparison. Colorimetric methods offer the highest degree of accuracy in blood loss estimation. Systems that use colorimetric techniques have a significant advantage in the real-time assessment of blood loss.

Abstract

Importance: Blood transfusion is one of the most frequently used therapies worldwide and is associated with benefits, risks, and costs. Objective: To develop a set of evidence-based recommendations for patient blood management (PBM) and for research. Evidence Review: The scientific committee developed 17 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome (PICO) questions for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in adult patients in 3 areas: preoperative anemia (3 questions), RBC transfusion thresholds (11 questions), and implementation of PBM programs (3 questions). These questions guided the literature search in 4 biomedical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Transfusion Evidence Library), searched from inception to January 2018. Meta-analyses were conducted with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology and the Evidence-to-Decision framework by 3 panels including clinical and scientific experts, nurses, patient representatives, and methodologists, to develop clinical recommendations during a consensus conference in Frankfurt/Main, Germany, in April 2018. Findings: From 17607 literature citations associated with the 17 PICO questions, 145 studies, including 63 randomized clinical trials with 23143 patients and 82 observational studies with more than 4 million patients, were analyzed. For preoperative anemia, 4 clinical and 3 research recommendations were developed, including the strong recommendation to detect and manage anemia sufficiently early before major elective surgery. For RBC transfusion thresholds, 4 clinical and 6 research recommendations were developed, including 2 strong clinical recommendations for critically ill but clinically stable intensive care patients with or without septic shock (recommended threshold for RBC transfusion, hemoglobin concentration <7 g/dL) as well as for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (recommended threshold for RBC transfusion, hemoglobin concentration <7.5 g/dL). For implementation of PBM programs, 2 clinical and 3 research recommendations were developed, including recommendations to implement comprehensive PBM programs and to use electronic decision support systems (both conditional recommendations) to improve appropriate RBC utilization. Conclusions and Relevance: The 2018 PBM International Consensus Conference defined the current status of the PBM evidence base for practice and research purposes and established 10 clinical recommendations and 12 research recommendations for preoperative anemia, RBC transfusion thresholds for adults, and implementation of PBM programs. The relative paucity of strong evidence to answer many of the PICO questions supports the need for additional research and an international consensus for accepted definitions and hemoglobin thresholds, as well as clinically meaningful end points for multicenter trials.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Patient Blood Management (PBM) aims to optimize the care of patients who might need a blood transfusion. The International Consensus Conference on PBM (ICC-PBM) aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations on three topics: preoperative anaemia, red blood cell transfusion thresholds and implementation of PBM programmes. This paper reports how evidence-based methodologies and technologies were used to enhance shared decision-making in formulating recommendations during the ICC-PBM. MATERIALS & METHODS Systematic reviews on 17 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions were conducted by a Scientific Committee (22 international topic experts and one methodologist) according to GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using Consensus Development Conference methodology. RESULTS We screened 17 607 references and included 145 studies. The overall certainty in the evidence of effect estimates was generally low or very low. During the ICC, plenary sessions (100-200 stakeholders from a range of clinical disciplines and community representatives) were followed by closed sessions where multidisciplinary decision-making panels (>50 experts and patient organizations) formulated recommendations. Two chairs (content-expert and methodologist) moderated each session and two rapporteurs documented the discussions. The Evidence-to-Decision template (GRADEpro software) was used as the central basis in the process of formulating recommendations. CONCLUSION This ICC-PBM resulted in 10 clinical and 12 research recommendations supported by an international stakeholder group of experts in blood transfusion. Systematic, rigorous and transparent evidence-based methodology in a formal consensus format should be the new standard to evaluate (cost-) effectiveness of medical treatments, such as blood transfusion.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Patient Blood Management (PBM) is the timely application of evidence-based medical and surgical concepts designed to improve haemoglobin concentration, optimize haemostasis and minimize blood loss in an effort to improve patient outcomes. The focus of this cost-benefit analysis is to analyse the economic benefit of widespread implementation of a multimodal PBM programme. MATERIALS AND METHODS Based on a recent meta-analysis including 17 studies (>235 000 patients) comparing PBM with control care and data from the University Hospital Frankfurt, a cost-benefit analysis was performed. Outcome data were red blood cell (RBC) transfusion rate, number of transfused RBC units, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Costs were considered for the following three PBM interventions as examples: anaemia management including therapy of iron deficiency, use of cell salvage and tranexamic acid. For sensitivity analysis, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed. RESULTS Iron supplementation was applied in 3.1%, cell salvage in 65% and tranexamic acid in 89% of the PBM patients. In total, applying these three PBM interventions costs euro129.04 per patient. However, PBM was associated with a reduction in transfusion rate, transfused RBC units per patient, and LOS which yielded to mean savings of euro150.64 per patient. Thus, the overall benefit of PBM implementation was euro21.60 per patient. In the Monte Carlo simulation, the cost savings on the outcome side exceeded the PBM costs in approximately 2/3 of all repetitions and the total benefit was euro1 878 000 in 100.000 simulated patients. CONCLUSION Resources to implement a multimodal PBM concept optimizing patient care and safety can be cost-effectively.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To determine whether a multidisciplinary, multimodal Patient Blood Management (PBM) program for patients undergoing surgery is effective in reducing perioperative complication rate, and thereby is effective in improving clinical outcome. BACKGROUND PBM is a medical concept with the focus on a comprehensive anemia management, to minimize iatrogenic (unnecessary) blood loss, and to harness and optimize patient-specific physiological tolerance of anemia. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Eligible studies had to address each of the 3 PBM pillars with at least 1 measure per pillar, for example, preoperative anemia management plus cell salvage plus rational transfusion strategy. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017079217). RESULTS Seventeen studies comprising 235,779 surgical patients were included in this meta-analysis (100,886 pre-PBM group and 134,893 PBM group). Implementation of PBM significantly reduced transfusion rates by 39% [risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.68, P < 0.00001], 0.43 red blood cell units per patient (mean difference -0.43, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.31, P < 0.00001), hospital length of stay (mean difference -0.45, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.25, P < 0,00001), total number of complications (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.88, P <0.00001), and mortality rate (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Overall, a comprehensive PBM program addressing all 3 PBM pillars is associated with reduced transfusion need of red blood cell units, lower complication and mortality rate, and thereby improving clinical outcome. Thus, this first meta-analysis investigating a multimodal approach should motivate all executives and health care providers to support further PBM activities.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Patient blood management (PBM) is a multidisciplinary concept focused on the management of anaemia, minimisation of iatrogenic blood loss and rational use of allogeneic blood products. The aims of this study were: (i) to analyse post-operative outcome in patients with liberal vs restrictive exposure to allogeneic blood products and (ii) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PBM in patients undergoing surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed to compare post-operative complications in predominantly non-transfused patients (restrictive transfusion group) and patients who received one to three units of red blood cells (liberal transfusion group). Outcome measures included sepsis with/without pneumonia, acute renal failure, acute myocardial infarction and acute stroke. In a second step, a health economic model was developed to calculate cost-effectiveness of PBM (PBM-arm vs control-arm) for simulated cohorts of 10,000 cardiac and non-cardiac surgical patients based on the results of the meta-analysis and costs. RESULTS Out of 478 search results, 22 studies were analysed in the meta-analysis. The pooled relative risk of any complication in the restrictive transfusion group was 0.43 for non-cardiac and 0.34 for cardiac surgical patients. In the simulation model, PBM was related to reduced complications (1,768 vs 1,245) and complication-related deaths (411 vs 304) compared to standard care. PBM-related costs of therapy exceeded costs of the control arm by euro 150 per patient. However, total costs, including hospitalisation, were higher in the control-arm for both non-cardiac (euro 2,885.11) and cardiac surgery patients (euro 1,760.69). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio including hospitalisation showed savings of euro 30,458 (non-cardiac and cardiac surgery patients) for preventing one complication and euro 128,023 (non-cardiac and cardiac surgery patients) for prevention of one complication-related death in the PBM-arm. DISCUSSION Our results indicate that PBM may be associated with fewer adverse clinical outcomes compared to control management and may, thereby, be cost-effective.