Iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease

Intravenous Iron Therapy to Treat Anemia in Oncology: A Mapping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Anemia is a common problem when patients present with cancer, and it can worsen during treatment. Anemia can directly impact the cognitive and physical quality of life and may impair fitness for oncological therapy. The most common cause of anemia is iron deficiency. Newer intravenous (IV) iron formulations offer a safe and rapidly effective treatment option. We performed a systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intravenous iron therapy in patients with cancer and anemia and their outcomes. A total of 23 RCTs were identified. The median number of patients enrolled was 104 (IQR: 60-134). A total of 5 were focused on surgical outcomes (4 preoperative, 1 postoperative), and 15 were in adjuvant therapies for a variety of tumor types (breast, colorectal, lung, gynecological, myeloid, and lymphomas), 10 of which were in combination with erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) therapy, 2 in radiotherapy, and 1 in palliative care. Overall, the studies reported that the use of IV iron increased hemoglobin concentration and decreased transfusion rates during different cancer treatment regimes. IV iron can be administered safely throughout the cancer treatment pathway from primary surgery to the palliative setting. More studies are needed to demonstrate net clinical outcomes.

Interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Following hip fracture, people sustain an acute blood loss caused by the injury and subsequent surgery. Because the majority of hip fractures occur in older adults, blood loss may be compounded by pre-existing anaemia. Allogenic blood transfusions (ABT) may be given before, during, and after surgery to correct chronic anaemia or acute blood loss. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit-risk ratio for ABT. This is a potentially scarce resource, with availability of blood products sometimes uncertain. Other strategies from Patient Blood Management may prevent or minimise blood loss and avoid administration of ABT.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, administered perioperatively, on reducing blood loss, anaemia, and the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

In January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions given to prevent or minimise blood loss, treat the effects of anaemia, and reduce the need for ABT, in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. We searched for pharmacological interventions (fibrinogen, factor VIIa and factor XIII, desmopressin, antifibrinolytics, fibrin and non-fibrin sealants and glue, agents to reverse the effects of anticoagulants, erythropoiesis agents, iron, vitamin B12, and folate replacement therapy) and non-pharmacological interventions (surgical approaches to reduce or manage blood loss, intraoperative cell salvage and autologous blood transfusion, temperature management, and oxygen therapy). We used Cochrane methodology, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2. We assessed the degree of overlap of RCTs between reviews. Because overlap was very high, we used a hierarchical approach to select reviews from which to report data; we compared the findings of selected reviews with findings from the other reviews. Outcomes were: number of people requiring ABT, volume of transfused blood (measured as units of packed red blood cells (PRC)), postoperative delirium, adverse events, activities of daily living (ADL), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 26 systematic reviews including 36 RCTs (3923 participants), which only evaluated tranexamic acid and iron. We found no reviews of other pharmacological interventions or any non-pharmacological interventions. Tranexamic acid (17 reviews, 29 eligible RCTs) We selected reviews with the most recent search date, and which included data for the most outcomes. The methodological quality of these reviews was low. However, the findings were largely consistent across reviews. One review included 24 RCTs, with participants who had internal fixation or arthroplasty for different types of hip fracture. Tranexamic acid was given intravenously or topically during the perioperative period. In this review, based on a control group risk of 451 people per 1000, 194 fewer people per 1000 probably require ABT after receiving tranexamic acid (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.68; 21 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty for possible publication bias. Review authors found that there was probably little or no difference in the risks of adverse events, reported as deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.81; 22 studies), pulmonary embolism (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.86; 9 studies), myocardial infarction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.33; 8 studies), cerebrovascular accident (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.70; 8 studies), or death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.46; 10 studies). We judged evidence from these outcomes to be moderate certainty, downgraded for imprecision. Another review, with a similarly broad inclusion criteria, included 10 studies, and found that tranexamic acid probably reduces the volume of transfused PRC (0.53 fewer units, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.80; 7 studies, 813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty because of unexplained high levels of statistical heterogeneity. No reviews reported outcomes of postoperative delirium, ADL, or HRQoL. Iron (9 reviews, 7 eligible RCTs) Whilst all reviews included studies in hip fracture populations, most also included other surgical populations. The most current, direct evidence was reported in two RCTs, with 403 participants with hip fracture; iron was given intravenously, starting preoperatively. This review did not include evidence for iron with erythropoietin. The methodological quality of this review was low. In this review, there was low-certainty evidence from two studies (403 participants) that there may be little or no difference according to whether intravenous iron was given in: the number of people who required ABT (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11), the volume of transfused blood (MD -0.07 units of PRC, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.17), infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13). There may be little or no difference in delirium (25 events in the iron group compared to 26 events in control group; 1 study, 303 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very unsure whether there was any difference in HRQoL, since it was reported without an effect estimate. The findings were largely consistent across reviews. We downgraded the evidence for imprecision, because studies included few participants, and the wide CIs indicated possible benefit and harm. No reviews reported outcomes of cognitive dysfunction, ADL, or HRQoL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tranexamic acid probably reduces the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, and there is probably little or no difference in adverse events. For iron, there may be little or no difference in overall clinical effects, but this finding is limited by evidence from only a few small studies. Reviews of these treatments did not adequately include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), and evidence for their effectiveness remains incomplete. We were unable to effectively explore the impact of timing and route of administration between reviews. A lack of systematic reviews for other types of pharmacological or any non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the need for ABT indicates a need for further evidence syntheses to explore this. Methodologically sound evidence syntheses should include PROMS within four months of surgery.

Consensus guidelines for diagnosis and management of anemia in epidermolysis bullosa

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a common complication of severe forms of epidermolysis bullosa (EB). To date, there are no guidelines outlining best clinical practices to manage anemia in the EB population. The objective of this manuscript is to present the first consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of anemia in EB.

RESULTS

Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, a consensus methodology was followed. An initial survey exploring patient preferences, concerns and symptoms related to anemia was sent to EB patients and their family members. A second survey was distributed to EB experts and focused on screening, diagnosis, monitoring and management of anemia in the different types of EB. Information from these surveys was collated and used by the panel to generate 26 consensus statements. Consensus statements were sent to healthcare providers that care for EB patients through EB-Clinet. Statements that received more than 70% approval (completely agree/agree) were adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

The end result was a series of 6 recommendations which include 20 statements that will help guide management of anemia in EB patients. In patients with moderate to severe forms of EB, the minimum desirable level of Hb is 100 g/L. Treatment should be individualized. Dietary measures should be offered as part of management of anemia in all EB patients, oral iron supplementation should be used for mild anemia; while iron infusion is reserved for moderate to severe anemia, if Hb levels of > 80-100 g/L (8-10 g/dL) and symptomatic; and transfusion should be administered if Hb is < 80 g/L (8 g/dL) in adults and < 60 g/L (6 g/dL) in children.

The impact of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on robotic-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion: a case-control study

Purpose

To evaluate the role of low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) in improving postoperative recovery in Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion (ICUD).

Methods

A retrospective case–control study of 49 bladder cancer patients offered RARC/ICUD with standard (12 mmHg, n = 24) or low IAP (8 mmHg, n = 25). Outcomes of interest included length of procedure (LoP), estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, margin positivity rates, time to first flatus (TtFF), time to first bowel movement (TtFBM), ileus and small bowel obstruction (SBO) rates, time to safe discharge (TtSD), postoperative hospital stay (PHS) and pain levels on a postoperative day (POD) 1 and 3. Perioperative complications were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo system.

Results

Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, LoP, EBL and margin positivity rates were similar between groups. No transfusions were recorded. Median (IQR) TtFF, TtFBM and TtSD were significantly longer in Group 1 vs Group 2 (4 (1) vs 2 (1), 7 (3) vs 6 (2) and 8.5 (5.75) vs 5.0 (1), respectively). PHS and rates of postoperative ileus and SBO were lower in Group 2, however not statistically significant. Severe pain was uncommon in both groups but moderate/severe pain was significantly higher in Group 1 (95.8% vs 48% on POD1 and 62.5% vs 16% on POD3). No significant intraoperative complications were recorded and ≥ Grade 3 postoperative complications at 30 and 90 days were similar.

Conclusion

With limitations, Low-IAP RARC can be safely offered to RARC/ICUD patients and leads to faster bowel recovery, and shorter time to safe discharge compared to standard pneumoperitoneum.

Reporting conflicts of interest in randomised trials of patient blood management interventions in patients requiring major surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the effects of declared and undeclared conflicts of interest on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patient blood management (PBM) interventions.

DESIGN

We performed a secondary analysis of a recently published meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating five common PBM interventions in patients undergoing major surgery.

DATA SOURCES

The databases searched by the original systematic reviews were searched using subject headings and Medical Subject Headings terms according to search strategies from the final search time-points until 1 June 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs on PBM irrespective of blinding, language, date of publication and sample size were included. Abstracts and unpublished trials were excluded. Conflicts of interest were defined as sponsorship, funding or authorship by industry, professional PBM advocacy groups or blood services.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Three independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Pooled treatment effect estimates were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or standardised mean difference with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eighty-nine RCTs totalling 53 635 participants were included. Thirty-two trials (8%) were considered free from important sources of bias. There was reporting bias favouring PBM interventions on transfusion across all analyses. In trials with no declared author conflicts of interest, the treatment effect on mortality was RR 1.12 (0.86 to 1.45). In trials where author conflicts of interest were declared, the treatment effect on mortality was RR 0.84 (0.69 to 1.03), with significant reporting bias favouring PBM interventions. Trials with declared conflicts linked to professional PBM advocacy groups (five studies, n=977 patients) reported statistically significant reductions in mortality RR 0.40 (0.17 to 0.92), unlike other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low certainty of the evidence that guides PBM implementation is confounded by evidence of reporting bias, and the effects of declared and undeclared conflicts of interest, favouring PBM on important trial outcomes.

Daily versus every other day oral iron supplementation in patients with iron deficiency anemia (DEODO): study protocol for a phase 3 multicentered, pragmatic, open-label, pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) accounts for the majority of anemia cases across the globe and can lead to impairments in both physical and cognitive functioning. Oral iron supplementation is the first line of treatment to improve the hemoglobin level for IDA patients. However, gaps still exist in understanding the appropriate dosing regimen of oral iron. The current trial proposes to evaluate the feasibility of performing this study to examine the effectiveness and side-effect profile of oral iron once daily versus every other day.

METHODS

In this open-label, pilot, feasibility, randomized controlled trial, 52 outpatients over 16 years of age with IDA (defined as hemoglobin < 12.0 g/dL in females and < 13.0 g/dL in males and ferritin < 30 mcg/L) will be enrolled across two large academic hospitals. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 300 mg oral ferrous sulfate (60 mg of elemental iron) either every day or every other day for 12 weeks. Participants are excluded if they are as follows: (1) pregnant and/or currently breastfeeding, (2) have a disease history that would impair response to oral iron (e.g., thalassemia, celiac disease), (3) intolerant and/or have an allergy to oral iron or vitamin C, (4) on new anticoagulants in the past 6 months, (5) received IV iron therapy in the past 12 weeks, (6) have surgery, chemotherapy, or blood donation planned in upcoming 12 weeks, (7) a creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min, or (8) hemoglobin less than 8.0 g/dL with active bleeding. The primary outcome is feasibility to enroll 52 participants in this trial over a 2-year period to determine the effectiveness of daily versus every other day oral iron supplementation on hemoglobin at 12 weeks post-initiation and side-effect profile.

DISCUSSION

The results of this trial will provide additional evidence for an appropriate dosing schedule for treating patients with IDA with oral iron supplementation. Additional knowledge will be gained on how the dosing regimen of oral iron impacts quality of life and hemoglobin repletion in IDA patients. If this trial is deemed feasible, it will inform the development and implementation of a larger multicenter definitive trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03725384 . Registered 31 October 2018.

Evaluation of minimally invasive surgical skills training: comparing a neonatal esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula model with a dry box

BACKGROUND

Pediatric surgeons require highly advanced minimally invasive surgical skills to perform rare and complex surgeries in a very vulnerable population. We developed a neonatal esophageal atresia (EA) model to improve thoracoscopic surgical skills. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of the model by undertaking pre- and post-training skills assessments in two groups of students with no prior experience performing minimally invasive surgery, using the EA model and a dry box (DB).

METHODS

A pilot study was performed. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: one trained using the DB and one trained using the EA model. Both groups practiced a minimally invasive surgical suture task. The task completion time, 29-point checklist score, modified suturing error sheet score, and three-dimensional forceps movement in both groups were compared pre-and post-training by video analysis.

RESULTS

The EA model task was significantly more difficult than that of the DB. Both groups showed significant improvement in the task time, 29-point checklist score, and modified suturing error sheet score; however, the EA model training was more efficient in improving each error item. Regarding forceps movement, the EA model training significantly decreased wasted motion, whereas the DB was limited in this regard.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term training on the EA model, which was more technically demanding than the DB, decreased technical error and wasted motion, and allowed learners to acquire surgical skills more efficiently than training with the DB model. These facts revealed the concurrent validity of the EA model.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of iron deficiency anaemia in adults

Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is a major cause of morbidity and burden of disease worldwide. It can generally be diagnosed by blood testing and remedied by iron replacement therapy (IRT) using the oral or intravenous route. The many causes of iron deficiency include poor dietary intake and malabsorption of dietary iron, as well as a number of significant gastrointestinal (GI) pathologies. Because blood is iron-rich it can result from chronic blood loss, and this is a common mechanism underlying the development of IDA-for example, as a consequence of menstrual or GI blood loss.Approximately a third of men and postmenopausal women presenting with IDA have an underlying pathological abnormality, most commonly in the GI tract. Therefore optimal management of IDA requires IRT in combination with appropriate investigation to establish the underlying cause. Unexplained IDA in all at-risk individuals is an accepted indication for fast-track secondary care referral in the UK because GI malignancies can present in this way, often in the absence of specific symptoms. Bidirectional GI endoscopy is the standard diagnostic approach to examination of the upper and lower GI tract, though radiological scanning is an alternative in some situations for assessing the large bowel. In recurrent or refractory IDA, wireless capsule endoscopy plays an important role in assessment of the small bowel.IDA may present in primary care or across a range of specialties in secondary care, and because of this and the insidious nature of the condition it has not always been optimally managed despite the considerable burden of disease- with investigation sometimes being inappropriate, incorrectly timed or incomplete, and the role of IRT for symptom relief neglected. It is therefore important that contemporary guidelines for the management of IDA are available to all clinicians. This document is a revision of previous British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines, updated in the light of subsequent evidence and developments.

Nutrition-specific interventions for preventing and controlling anaemia throughout the life cycle: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is a prevalent health problem worldwide. Some types are preventable or controllable with iron supplementation (pills or drops), fortification (sprinkles or powders containing iron added to food) or improvements to dietary diversity and quality (e.g. education or counselling).

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the benefits or harms of nutrition-specific interventions for preventing and controlling anaemia in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations throughout the life cycle.

METHODS

In August 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and 10 other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations. We followed standard Cochrane methodology, extracting GRADE ratings where provided. The primary outcomes were haemoglobin (Hb) concentration, anaemia, and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA); secondary outcomes were iron deficiency (ID), severe anaemia and adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, vomiting).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews, 33 of which provided GRADE assessments; these varied between high and very low. Infants (6 to 23 months; 13 reviews) Iron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and IDA in two reviews. Iron fortification of milk or cereals, multiple-micronutrient powder (MMNP), home fortification of complementary foods, and supplementary feeding increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia in six reviews. In one review, lipid-based nutrient supplementation (LNS) reduced the risk of anaemia. In another, caterpillar cereal increased Hb levels and IDA prevalence. Food-based strategies (red meat and fortified cow's milk, beef) showed no evidence of a difference (1 review). Preschool and school-aged children (2 to 10 years; 8 reviews) Daily or intermittent iron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID in two reviews. One review found no evidence of difference in Hb levels, but an increased risk of anaemia and ID for the intermittent regime. All suggested that zinc plus iron supplementation versus zinc alone, multiple-micronutrient (MMN)-fortified beverage versus control, and point-of-use fortification of food with iron-containing micronutrient powder (MNP) versus placebo or no intervention may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and ID. Fortified dairy products and cereal food showed no evidence of a difference on the incidence of anaemia (1 review). Adolescent children (11 to 18 years; 4 reviews) Compared with no supplementation or placebo, five types of iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia (3 reviews). One review on prevention found no evidence of a difference in anaemia incidence on iron supplementation with or without folic acid, but Hb levels increased. Another suggested that nutritional supplementation and counselling reduced IDA. One review comparing MMN fortification with no fortification observed no evidence of a difference in Hb levels. Non-pregnant women of reproductive age (19 to 49 years; 5 reviews) Two reviews suggested that iron therapy (oral, intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM)) increased Hb levels; one showed that iron folic acid supplementation reduced anaemia incidence; and another that daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid or vitamin C increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID. No review reported interventions related to fortification or dietary diversity and quality. Pregnant women of reproductive age (15 to 49 years; 23 reviews) One review apiece suggested that: daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid increased Hb levels in the third trimester or at delivery and in the postpartum period, and reduced the risk of anaemia, IDA and ID in the third trimester or at delivery; intermittent iron supplementation had no effect on Hb levels and IDA, but increased the risk of anaemia at or near term and ID, and reduced the risk of side effects; vitamin A supplementation alone versus placebo, no intervention or other micronutrient might increase maternal Hb levels and reduce the risk of maternal anaemia; MMN with iron and folic acid versus placebo reduced the risk of anaemia; supplementation with oral bovine lactoferrin versus oral ferrous iron preparations increased Hb levels and reduced gastrointestinal side effects; MNP for point-of-use fortification of food versus iron and folic acid supplementation might decrease Hb levels at 32 weeks' gestation and increase the risk of anaemia; and LNS versus iron or folic acid and MMN increased the risk of anaemia. Mixed population (all ages; 22 reviews) Iron supplementation versus placebo or control increased Hb levels in healthy children, adults, and elderly people (4 reviews). Hb levels appeared to increase and risk of anaemia and ID decrease in two reviews investigating MMN fortification versus placebo or no treatment, iron fortified flour versus control, double fortified salt versus iodine only fortified salt, and rice fortification with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice or no intervention. Each review suggested that fortified versus non-fortified condiments or noodles, fortified (sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetate; NaFeEDTA) versus non-fortified soy sauce, and double-fortified salt versus control salt may increase Hb concentration and reduce the risk of anaemia. One review indicated that Hb levels increased for children who were anaemic or had IDA and received iron supplementation, and decreased for those who received dietary interventions. Another assessed the effects of foods prepared in iron pots, and found higher Hb levels in children with low-risk malaria status in two trials, but no difference when comparing food prepared in non-cast iron pots in a high-risk malaria endemicity mixed population. There was no evidence of a difference for adverse effects. Anaemia and malaria prevalence were rarely reported. No review focused on women aged 50 to 65 years plus or men (19 to 65 years plus).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to no treatment, daily iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and IDA in infants, preschool and school-aged children and pregnant and non-pregnant women. Iron fortification of foods in infants and use of iron pots with children may have prophylactic benefits for malaria endemicity low-risk populations. In any age group, only a limited number of reviews assessed interventions to improve dietary diversity and quality. Future trials should assess the effects of these types of interventions, and consider the requirements of different populations.

How Does Iron Deficiency Anemia Impact Outcomes following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Purpose

Studies have shown the prevalence of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) increasing worldwide, and currently the literature is limited on the impact of IDA on outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether IDA patients undergoing RTHA have longer: 1) in-hospital lengths of stay (LOS); 2) medical complications; and 3) costs of care.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective query of a nationwide administrative claims database was performed. Using Boolean command operations, the study group consisted of all patients in the database undergoing RTHA with IDA; whereas, patients without IDA served as controls. To reduce the effects of confounding, study group patients were matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio by age, sex, and medical comorbidities yielding 92,948 patients with (n=15,508) and without (n=77,440) IDA undergoing revision THA. A P-value less than 0.001 was considered statistically significant.

Results

IDA patients were found to have significantly longer in-hospital LOS (5 days vs. 4 days, P<0.0001). Additionally, the study showed IDA patients were found to higher incidence and odds of (73.84% vs. 11.77%, OR 5.04, P<0.0001) 90-day medical complications. IDA patients also incurred high 90-day episode of care costs ($25,597.51 vs. $20,085.70, P<0.0001).

Conclusion

After adjusting for age, sex, and medical comorbidities this study of over 92,000 patients demonstrated IDA is associated with longer in-hospital LOS, complications, and costs of care. Future studies should compare the duration and severity of IDA on outcomes.

Clinical nutrition as part of the treatment pathway of pancreatic cancer patients: an expert consensus

Purpose

Malnutrition is a common problem among pancreatic cancer (PC) patients that negatively impacts on their quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes. The main objective of this consensus is to address the role of Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) into the comprehensive therapeutic management of PC patients.

Methods

A Spanish multidisciplinary group of specialists from the areas of Medical Oncology; Radiation Oncology; Endocrinology and Nutrition; and General Surgery agreed to assess the role of MNT as part of the best therapeutic management of PC patients.

Results

The panel established different recommendations focused on nutritional screening and nutritional screening tools, MNT strategies according to PC status, and MNT in palliative treatment.

Conclusions

There is an unmet need to integrate nutritional therapy as a crucial part of the multimodal care process in PC patients. Health authorities, health care professionals, cancer patients, and their families should be aware of the relevance of nutritional status and MNT on clinical outcomes and QoL of PC patients.

Effectiveness of Iron Supplementation With or Without Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents on Red Blood Cell Utilization in Patients With Preoperative Anaemia Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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).

Preoperative intravenous iron for anaemia in elective major open abdominal surgery: the PREVENTT RCT

BACKGROUND

Anaemia affects 30-50% of patients before they undergo major surgery. Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased need for blood transfusion, postoperative complications and worse patient outcomes after surgery. International guidelines support the use of intravenous iron to correct anaemia in patients before surgery. However, the use of preoperative intravenous iron for patient benefit has not been assessed in the setting of a formal clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if intravenous iron given to patients with anaemia before major abdominal surgery is beneficial by reducing transfusion rates, postoperative complications, hospital stay and re-admission to hospital, and improving quality of life outcomes.

DESIGN

A multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, controlled, Phase III clinical trial, with 1 : 1 randomisation comparing placebo (normal saline) with intravenous iron (intravenous ferric carboxymaltose 1000 mg). Randomisation and treatment allocation were by a secure web-based service.

SETTING

The study was conducted across 46 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales between September 2013 and September 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged > 18 years, undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery, with anaemia [Hb level of > 90 g/l and < 120 g/l (female patients) and < 130 g/l (male patients)] who could undergo randomisation and treatment 10-42 days before their operation.

INTERVENTION

Double-blinded study comparing placebo of normal saline with 1000 mg of ferric carboxymaltose administered 10-42 days prior to surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Co-primary end points were risk of blood transfusion or death at 30 days postoperatively, and rate of blood transfusions at 30 days post operation.

RESULTS

A total of 487 patients were randomised (243 given placebo and 244 given intravenous iron), of whom 474 completed the trial and provided data for the analysis of the co-primary end points. The use of intravenous iron increased preoperative Hb levels (mean difference 4.7 g/l, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 6.8 g/l; p < 0.0001), but had no effect compared with placebo on risk of blood transfusion or death (risk ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.37; p = 0.84; absolute risk difference +0.8%, 95% confidence interval -7.3% to 9.0%), or rates of blood transfusion (rate ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.43; p = 0.93; absolute rate difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.14 to 0.15). There was no difference in postoperative complications or hospital stay. The intravenous iron group had higher Hb levels at the 8-week follow-up (difference in mean 10.7 g/l, 95% confidence interval 7.8 to 13.7 g/l; p < 0.0001). There were a total of 71 re-admissions to hospital for postoperative complications in the placebo group, compared with 38 re-admissions in the intravenous iron group (rate ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.009). There were no differences between the groups in terms of mortality (two per group at 30 days post operation) or in any of the prespecified safety end points or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with anaemia prior to elective major abdominal surgery, there was no benefit from giving intravenous iron before the operation.

FUTURE WORK

The impact of iron repletion on recovery from postoperative anaemia, and the association with reduced re-admission to hospital for complications, should be investigated.

LIMITATIONS

In the preoperative intravenous iron to treat anaemia in major surgery (PREVENTT) trial, all patients included had anaemia and only 20% had their anaemia corrected before surgery. The definition and causality of iron deficiency in this setting is not clear.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67322816 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01692418.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25 No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Clinical and Organizational Impact of the AIRSEAL® Insufflation System During Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Several low-impact laparoscopic strategies have been developed to improve the safety of pneumoperitoneum. We conducted a systematic review to establish the current evidence base for the use of the AIRSEAL^® insufflation device for low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. We searched the literature using several electronic databases, for studies with comparative design published in the English language from January 2010 to April 2020. The population of interest included patients with any type of health condition who underwent laparoscopic surgery using the AIRSEAL^® insufflation system or a standard CO₂ insufflator. Ten studies (four randomized clinical trials/six non-randomized clinical trials), that enrolled 1394 participants in total who underwent urology, gynaecology or abdominal surgeries, were included. Total complication rates were similar between groups. Only three studies evaluated the impact of the insufflation system on post-operative pain, and showed inconsistent benefit of AIRSEAL^® (significant decrease in pain in two studies, no difference in one). The same was observed in the two sole studies in which pain killers consumption was measured (significant decrease in morphine consumption 24 h after surgery in one study, no difference in the other). Operative duration was significantly shorter with AIRSEAL^® in three studies. For both post-operative room and total length of stay, there was no difference between groups. No studies reported economic outcomes. Current literature supports the feasibility of the AIRSEAL^® system during laparoscopic surgery but more studies are required to establish the added clinical benefit and to explore the preferences of physicians and patients.

Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO2 pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®

Background

AirSeal® is a valve-free insufflation system that enables a stable pneumoperitoneum with continuous smoke evacuation and CO₂ recirculation during laparoscopic surgery. Comparative evidence on the use of AirSeal® and standard CO₂ insufflator in laparoscopic general surgery procedures is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between AirSeal® and standard CO₂ insufflators in patients undergoing the most frequently performed laparoscopic procedures.

Methods

One hundred and ninety-eight patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, colorectal surgery and hernia repair were randomized to either AirSeal® (group A) or standard pressure CO₂ insufflator (group S). The primary endpoints were operative time and level of postoperative shoulder tip pain (Visual Analog Scale). Secondary outcomes included Clavien–Dindo grade complications, surgical side effect and length of hospital stay.

Results

Patients were randomized to either group A (n = 101) or group S (n = 97) and were analyzed by intention-to-treat. There was no significant difference in mean operative time between the groups (median [IQR]; 71 min [56–94] in group A vs. 69 min [52–93] in group S; p = 0.434). Shoulder tip pain levels were significantly lower in group S (VAS 0 [0–3] in group S vs. 2 [0–4] in group A; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in complications, surgical side effects (subcutaneous emphysema was not observed in any group) and length of hospital stay.

Conclusion

This randomized controlled trial showed that using the AirSeal® system did not reduce operative time and was associated with a higher postoperative shoulder tip pain compared to standard CO₂ insufflator for short elective surgeries.

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740011).

Patient blood management interventions do not lead to important clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness for major surgery: a network meta-analysis

Background

Patient blood management (PBM) interventions aim to improve clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding and transfusion. We assessed whether existing evidence supports the routine use of combinations of these interventions during and after major surgery.

Methods

Five systematic reviews and a National Institute of Health and Care Excellence health economic review of trials of common PBM interventions enrolling participants of any age undergoing surgery were updated. The last search was on June 1, 2019. Studies in trauma, burns, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, gynaecology, dentistry, or critical care were excluded. The co-primary outcomes were: risk of receiving red cell transfusion and 30-day or hospital all-cause mortality. Treatment effects were estimated using random-effects models and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity assessments used I². Network meta-analyses used a frequentist approach. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42018085730).

Results

Searches identified 393 eligible randomised controlled trials enrolling 54 917 participants. PBM interventions resulted in a reduction in exposure to red cell transfusion (RR=0.60; 95% CI 0.57, 0.63; I²=77%), but had no statistically significant treatment effect on 30-day or hospital mortality (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.81, 1.07; I²=0%). Treatment effects were consistent across multiple secondary outcomes, sub-groups and sensitivity analyses that considered clinical setting, type of intervention, and trial quality. Network meta-analysis did not demonstrate additive benefits from the use of multiple interventions. No trial demonstrated that PBM was cost-effective.

Conclusions

In randomised trials, PBM interventions do not have important clinical benefits beyond reducing bleeding and transfusion in people undergoing major surgery.

Less is more: clinical impact of decreasing pneumoperitoneum pressures during robotic surgery

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of decreasing insufflation pressure during robotic gynecologic surgery. The primary outcomes were patient-reported postoperative pain scores and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include surgical time, blood loss, and intraoperative respiratory parameters. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing robotic surgery for benign gynecologic conditions by a single minimally invasive surgeon at an academic hospital between 2014 and 2017. Patients were categorized by the maximum insufflation pressure reached during the surgery as either 15, 12, 10, or 8 mmHg. Continuous variables were compared using analysis of variance and χ² test was used for categorical variables. 598 patients were included in this study with no differences in age, BMI, race, prior abdominal surgeries, or specimen weight between the four cohorts. When comparing cohorts, each decrease in insufflation pressure correlated with a significant decrease in initial pain scores (5.9 vs 5.4 vs 4.4 vs. 3.8, p ≤ 0.001), and hospital length of stay (449 vs 467 vs 351 vs. 317 min, p ≤ 0.001). There were no differences in duration of surgery (p = 0.31) or blood loss (p = 0.09). Lower operating pressures were correlated with significantly lower peak inspiratory pressures (p < 0.001) and tidal volumes (p < 0.001). Surgery performed at lower-pressure pneumoperitoneum (≤ 10 mmHg) is associated with lower postoperative pain scores, shorter length of stay, and improved intraoperative respiratory parameters without increased duration of surgery or blood loss. Operating at lower insufflation pressures is a low-cost, reversible intervention that should be implemented during robotic surgery as it results in the improved pain scores and shorter hospital stays.

Preoperative skill evaluation in transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair using a three-dimensional printed TAPP repair simulator

BACKGROUND

Although transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TAPP LIHR) is becoming increasingly more critical in the management of hernias, it has a long learning curve. The learning curve is often measured by a shortened operative time without mention of the quality of the procedure. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of a three-dimensional printed TAPP LIHR simulator to evaluate the surgeon's preoperative skill before entering the operative theater.

METHODS

Fifteen surgeons in our institution were enrolled in this study. They performed simulation TAPP LIHR while being video recorded. The TAPP LIHR simulator allows for the performance of all procedures required in TAPP LIHR. All participants were classified according to several background factors: postgraduate years (PGYs) (1-5, 6-10, or > 10), number of TAPP LIHR procedures performed (< 10, 11-49, or > 50), and number of laparoscopic surgeries performed (≤ 100 or > 100). The correlation among PGYs, the number of TAPP repairs performed, and the checklist score was evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean total score and time required to perform TAPP LIHR were significantly different among the three TAPP LIHR experience groups (< 10, 11-49, and > 50 procedures; P < 0.05). The checklist score and time required to perform TAPP LIHR were strongly correlated with the number of TAPP LIHR procedures performed (r = 0.74 and r = 0.69, respectively). However, the checklist score showed a weak correlation with PGY (r = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative skill evaluation using a TAPP LIHR simulator and TAPP repair checklist supports the distinction between novices and experts. Both education systems are a valuable and affordable tool for evaluation and training of TAPP LIHR.

Variability in the clinical management of iron deficiency anaemia in older adults: results from a survey of UK specialists in the care of older people

Background:

Iron deficiency anaemia in older adults is common, but its management presents unique challenges in diagnosis and management. Little is known about compliance with current best practice guidelines.

Methods:

We undertook an online survey of physician members of the British Geriatrics Society to ascertain how they managed older patients with potential iron deficiency anaemia.

Results:

There were 141 respondents (96% from UK). Almost a third indicated they would accept haemoglobin levels <100 g/dl without further investigation. A quarter said they would only occasionally or never check ferritin levels. Only 30% would sometimes or always use parenteral iron when oral supplements were not tolerated.

Conclusions:

Responses suggest a high level of variation in clinical practice and low adherence to best practice guidelines. Possible explanations include an inadequate evidence base to guide management and a lack of knowledge on the challenges of managing iron deficiency anaemia in this population.

The evaluation of anaemia in an older primary care population: retrospective population-based study

Background

Anaemia is common in older people and the identification of potentially reversible haematinic deficiencies relies on appropriate investigation, often undertaken in primary care.

Aim

To determine the laboratory prevalence of anaemia, the types of anaemia observed, and the biochemical and haematological investigations undertaken to characterise any associated haematinic abnormality in older primary care patients.

Design & setting

A retrospective primary care based study of patients aged >65 years undergoing a full blood count in Oxfordshire, UK between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013.

Method

Consecutive patients aged >65 years with a full blood count were identified retrospectively from a laboratory database. Patient demographics, number of blood tests and additional laboratory investigations requested were recorded. World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria were used to define anaemia.

Results

In total 151 473 full blood counts from 53 890 participants were included: 29.6% of patients were anaemic. The majority had a normocytic anaemia (82.4%) and 46.0% of participants with anaemia had no additional investigations performed. The mean haemoglobin was lower in the anaemic group that underwent further investigation than those who did not (Hb 10.68 g/dl versus 11.24 g/dl, P<0.05): 33.2 % of patients with a microcytic anaemia (mean cell volume <80) did not have any markers of iron status measured.

Conclusion

A large proportion of older adults in primary care with a recent blood test are anaemic, the majority with a normocytic anaemia, with evidence of inadequate investigation. Those with lower haemoglobin are more likely to be further investigated. Further work is needed to understand the approach to anaemia in older adults in primary care.

Iron Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency: Review of Iron Preparations for Practitioners

In patients with heart failure (HF), iron deficiency (ID) correlates with decreased exercise capacity and poor health-related quality of life, and predicts worse outcomes. Both absolute (depleted iron stores) and functional (where iron is unavailable for dedicated tissues) ID can be easily evaluated in patients with HF using standard laboratory tests (assessment of serum ferritin and transferrin saturation). Intravenous iron therapy in iron-deficient patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction has been shown to alleviate HF symptoms and improve exercise capacity and quality of life. In this paper, we provide information on how to diagnose ID in HF. Further we discuss pros and cons of different iron preparations and discuss the results of major trials implementing iron supplementation in HF patients, in order to provide practical guidance for clinicians on how to manage ID in patients with HF.

The UK Cardiac and Vascular Surgery Interventional Anaemia Response (CAVIAR) Study: protocol for an observational cohort study to determine the impact and effect of preoperative anaemia management in cardiac and vascular surgical patients

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative anaemia is linked to poor postsurgical outcome, longer hospital stays, greater risk of complications and mortality. Currently in the UK, some sites have developed anaemia clinics or pathways that use intravenous iron to correct iron deficiency anaemia prior to surgery as their standard of care. Although intravenous iron has been observed to be effective in a variety of patient settings, there is insufficient evidence in its use in cardiac and vascular patients. The aim of this study is to observe the impact and effect of anaemia and its management in patients undergoing cardiac and vascular surgery. In addition, the UK Cardiac and Vascular Surgery Interventional Anaemia Response (CAVIAR) Study is also a feasibility study with the aim to establish anaemia management pathways in the preoperative setting to inform the design of future randomised controlled trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The UK CAVIAR Study is a multicentre, stepped, observational study, in patients awaiting major cardiac or vascular surgery. We will be examining different haematological variables (especially hepcidin), functional capacity and patient outcome. Patients will be compared based on their anaemia status, whether they received intravenous iron in accordance to their hospital's preoperative pathway, and their disease group. The primary outcomes are the change in haemoglobin levels from baseline (before treatment) to before surgery; and the number of successful patients recruited and consented (feasibility). The secondary outcomes will include changes in biomarkers of iron deficiency, length of stay, quality of life and postoperative recovery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the London-Westminster Research Ethics Committee (15/LO/1569, 27 November 2015). NHS approval was also obtained with each hospital trust. The findings of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical Trials registry (NCT02637102) and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN55032357).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease: updated and abridged Cochrane review

AIMS

Anaemia is increasingly recognized as having an independent impact upon patient outcomes in cardiac disease. The role of novel iron therapies to treat anaemia is increasing. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the efficacy and safety of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases and search engines were searched as per Cochrane methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of iron vs. inactive control or placebo, as well as alternative formulations, doses, and routes in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease or in the peri-partum period were eligible. The primary outcome of interest was mortality at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were blood transfusion, haemoglobin levels, quality of life, serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay. A total of 64 RCTs (including five studies of heart failure patients) comprising 9004 participants were included. None of the studies was at a low risk of bias. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality between iron and inactive control. Both oral and parenteral iron significantly reduced the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion compared with inactive control [risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.90; and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, respectively]. Haemoglobin was increased more by both oral and parenteral iron compared with inactive control [mean difference (MD) 0.91 g/dL, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.35; and MD 1.04, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.57, respectively], and parenteral iron demonstrated a greater increase when compared with oral iron (MD 0.53 g/dL, 95% CI 0.31-0.75). In all comparisons, there were no differences in the results comparing patients with and without heart failure.

CONCLUSION

Both oral and parenteral iron are shown to decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion and increase haemoglobin levels, without any benefit on mortality. Further trials at a low risk of bias, powered to measure clinically significant endpoints, are still required.

[Iron deficiency in the elderly]

Anemia is a common diagnosis in the geriatric population, especially in institutionalized and hospitalized elderly. Most common etiologies for anemia in elderly people admitted to a geriatric ward are iron-deficiency anemia and anemia associated with chronic disease. Determination of serum ferritin is the most used assay in the differential diagnosis, despite low sensitivity and moderate specificity. New insights into iron homeostasis lead to new diagnostic assays such as serum hepcidin, serum transferrin receptor and reticulocyte hemoglobin equivalent.Importance of proper diagnosis and treatment for this population is large since there is a correlation between anemia and morbidity - mortality. Anemia is usually defined as hemoglobin less than 12 g/dl for women and less than 13 g/dl for men. There is no consensus for which hemoglobinvalue an investigation into underlying pathology is obligatory. This needs to be evaluated depending on functional condition of the patient.

Postoperative intravenously administered iron sucrose versus postoperative orally administered iron to treat post-bariatric abdominoplasty anaemia (ISAPA): the study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Anaemia and iron deficiency are common complications following post-bariatric abdominoplasty. Given the low oral absorbability of iron resulting from bariatric surgery, it has been hypothesised that postoperative intravenously administered iron supplementation could be used to treat anaemia and to prevent the development of iron deficiency in these patients.

Methods/Design

In this multicentre open-label randomised clinical trial, 56 adult women undergoing post-bariatric anchor-line abdominoplasty will be allocated at a ratio of 1:1 for postoperative supplementation with two intravenously administered applications of 200 mg of iron saccharate or postoperative supplementation with 100 mg of iron polymaltose complex administered orally, twice a day for 8 weeks. The primary outcome is the difference in mean haemoglobin levels between the two groups at eight postoperative weeks. Secondary outcomes evaluated at one, four and eight postoperative weeks include iron profile, reticulocyte count, overall quality of life measured using the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire, fatigue measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue (FACIT-F), adverse effects and postoperative complications.

Discussion

This randomised clinical trial aims to evaluate the haematopoietic effectiveness of intravenously administered iron supplementation in patients undergoing post-bariatric abdominoplasty. A more effective recovery of haemoglobin levels could help improve the patients’ quality of life and could provide an improved haematological status in preparation for the subsequent and frequent plastic surgeries these patients undergo.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01857011 (8 May 2013), Universal Trial Number U111-1169-6223, Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC): RBR-2JGRKQ.

Patient blood management to reduce surgical risk

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anaemia and perioperative blood transfusion are both identifiable and preventable surgical risks. Patient blood management is a multimodal approach to address this issue. It focuses on three pillars of care: the detection and treatment of preoperative anaemia; the reduction of perioperative blood loss; and harnessing and optimizing the patient-specific physiological reserve of anaemia, including restrictive haemoglobin transfusion triggers. This article reviews why patient blood management is needed and strategies for its incorporation into surgical pathways.

METHODS

Studies investigating the three pillars of patient blood management were identified using PubMed, focusing on recent evidence-based guidance for perioperative management.

RESULTS

Anaemia is common in surgical practice. Both anaemia and blood transfusion are independently associated with adverse outcomes. Functional iron deficiency (iron restriction due to increased levels of hepcidin) is the most common cause of preoperative anaemia, and should be treated with intravenous iron. Intraoperative blood loss can be reduced with antifibrinolytic drugs such as tranexamic acid, and cell salvage should be used. A restrictive transfusion practice should be the standard of care after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The significance of preoperative anaemia appears underappreciated, and its detection should lead to routine investigation and treatment before elective surgery. The risks of unnecessary blood transfusion are increasingly being recognized. Strategic adoption of patient blood management in surgical practice is recommended, and will reduce costs and improve outcomes in surgery.

Role of preoperative intravenous iron therapy to correct anemia before major surgery: study protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anemia is a common and potentially serious hematological problem in elective surgery and increases the risk for perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Transfusion is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative intravenous (IV) iron therapy has been proposed as an intervention to reduce perioperative transfusion; however, studies are generally small, limited, and inconclusive.

METHODS/DESIGN

We propose performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Cochrane-controlled trial registry, Scopus, registries of health technology assessment and clinical trials, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and conference proceedings in transfusion, hematology, and surgery. We will contact our study drug manufacturer for unpublished trials. Titles and abstracts will be identified and assessed by two reviewers for potential relevance. Eligible studies are: randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative administration of IV iron with placebo or standard of care to reduce perioperative blood transfusion in anemic patients undergoing major surgery. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal will be conducted independently by two authors. Data will be presented in evidence tables and in meta-analytic forest plots. Primary efficacy outcomes are change in hemoglobin concentration and proportion of patients requiring RBC transfusion. Secondary outcomes include number of units of blood or blood products transfused perioperatively, transfusion-related acute lung injury, neurologic complications, adverse events, postoperative infections, cardiopulmonary complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admission/readmission, length of hospital stay, acute kidney injury, and mortality. Dichotomous outcomes will be reported as pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Continuous outcomes will be reported using calculated weighted mean differences. Meta-regression will be performed to evaluate the impact of potential confounding variables on study effect estimates.

DISCUSSION

Reducing unnecessary RBC transfusions in perioperative medicine is a clinical priority. This involves the identification of patients at risk of receiving transfusions along with blood conservation strategies. Of potential pharmacological blood conservation strategies, IV iron is a compelling intervention to treat preoperative anemia; however, existing data are uncertain. We propose performing a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of IV iron administration to anemic patients undergoing major surgery to reduce transfusion and perioperative morbidity and mortality.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015016771.