Randomized clinical trial of preoperative intravenous iron sucrose to reduce blood transfusion in anaemic patients after colorectal cancer surgery

A meta-analysis on the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron therapy in cancer-associated anaemia: a double-edged sword?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The increased use of i.v. iron in the treatment of cancer-associated anemia raises concerns about its risk of infectious complications. High levels of circulating iron could increase the risk of infection by compromising natural defence mechanisms and promoting pathogen growth. Since the risk of infection is particularly high in the oncological population, we have examined whether the use of i.v. iron increases the risk of infectious complications among cancer patients.

FINDINGS

Among 18 randomized trials in our systematic review, only 8 reported infectious complications, with no significant difference linked to the type of i.v. iron preparation. Two trials showed a statistically significant increase in infectious complications, one trial found a lower risk, while the remaining 5 reported no significant difference. Our meta-analysis revealed a numerical increase in infectious complications in the i.v. iron group, but the lack of statistical significance and significant heterogeneity among the trials limit definitive conclusions on the actual infection risk.

SUMMARY

Our findings suggest some increased risk in infectious complications after the administration of i.v. iron for cancer associated anaemia. However, i.v. iron therapy appears generally safe and effective in cancer-associated anaemia.

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.

Bloodless surgery in urologic oncology: A review of hematologic, anesthetic, and surgical considerations

The urologic oncology patient who refuses blood transfusion can present unique challenges in perioperative blood management. Since blood loss and associated transfusion can be expected in many complex urologic oncology surgeries, a multidisciplinary approach may be required for optimal outcomes. Through collaboration with the hematologist, anesthesiologist, and urologist, various techniques can be employed in the perioperative phases to minimize blood loss and the need for transfusion. We review the risks and benefits of these techniques and offer recommendations specific to the urologic oncology patient.

Perioperative management with ferric carboxymaltose and tranexamic acid to reduce transfusion rate in gynaecological carcinoma surgery (TRANAFER-Study): study protocol for a single-blind, monocentre, randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Radical abdominal surgery is part of the standard treatment for women with advanced gynaecological carcinoma. The surgery often leads to intraoperative blood loss frequently exceeding 1000 mL. Approximately 50% of women undergoing radical surgery require blood transfusions. Perioperative blood transfusions have been shown to increase the risk of postoperative complications, delayed wound healing, increased length of stay, increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have demonstrated an association between perioperative anaemia and surgical morbidity and mortality. By reducing transfusions and improving recovery from surgery, preoperative diagnostic and management of perioperative anaemia is a great opportunity to optimise postoperative patient outcome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-blind, monocentre, randomised trial with four parallel groups (three therapeutic groups and one control group without treatment according to current standards of care) conducted in women undergoing radical gynaecological surgery. The primary study objective is to determine the effect of perioperative treatment with either intravenous iron, tranexamic acid or with a combination of both medicines on the reduction of intraoperative and postoperative red blood cell transfusions in gynaecological carcinoma patients. A total of N=126 women with gynaecological carcinoma will be recruited at the University Hospital Basel, Department of Gynaecology. Blood parameters will be measured at the recruitment, prior to surgery, 2 days after surgery and on the 21st-28th day after surgery. Recruitment started in August 2021.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be performed according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the Ethics Committee for Northwest and Central Switzerland in Basel (EKNZ Protocol ID 2020-01194). The results of this study will be published and presented in various scientific forums.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03792464.

Postoperative anaemia and patient-centred outcomes after major abdominal surgery: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Compared with anaemia before surgery, the underlying pathogenesis and implications of postoperative anaemia are largely unknown.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analysed prospective data obtained from 2983 adult patients across 47 centres enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating restrictive and liberal intravenous fluids. The primary endpoint was persistent disability or death up to 90 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included major septic complications, hospital stay, and patient quality of recovery using a 15-item quality of recovery (QoR-15) score, hospital re-admissions, and disability-free survival up to 12 months after surgery. Anaemia and disability were defined according to the WHO definitions. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for baseline risk and surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 2983 patients met inclusion criteria for this study, of which 78.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7-80.1%) had postoperative anaemia. Patients with postoperative anaemia had a higher adjusted risk of death or disability up to 90 days after surgery when compared with those without anaemia: 18.2% vs 9.2% (risk ratio [RR]=1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.07, P=0.011); lower QoR-15 scores on Day 3 and Day 30, 105 (95% CI, 87-119) vs 114 (95% CI, 99-128; P<0.001), and 130 (95% CI, 112-140) vs 139 (95% CI, 121-144; P<0.011), respectively; higher adjusted risk of a composite of mortality/septic complications, 2.01 (95% CI, 1.55-42.67; P<0.001); unplanned admission to ICU (RR=2.65; 95% CI, 1.65-4.23; P<0.001); and longer median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) hospital stays, 6.6 (4.4-12.4) vs 3.7 (2.5-6.5) days (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative anaemia is common and is independently associated with poor outcomes after surgery. Optimal prevention and treatment strategies need to be investigated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04978285 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Perioperative changes in haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations from preoperative intravenous iron isomaltoside for iron deficiency anaemia in patients with colorectal cancer: A pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Patients with colorectal cancer have a high risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) due to chronic tumour induced blood loss, a reduced dietary iron intake from poor nutrition or gastrointestinal malabsorption. This pilot, double blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) examined the effect and feasibility of using preoperative iron isomaltoside for treating iron deficiency anaemia.

Methods

Forty eligible adults with IDA were randomised to receive either intravenous iron isomaltoside (20 mg.kg^-1 up to 1000 mg over 30 minutes) or usual preoperative care (control) three weeks before scheduled colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were perioperative changes in haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations.

Results

The recruitment rate was 78% of all eligible referred patients (1.9 patients/month). The haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations were higher in the iron isomaltoside group than the control group over the perioperative period (group*time interaction P = 0.042 and P < 0.001 respectively). Mean haemoglobin change from baseline to before surgery was higher in the iron isomaltoside group (7.8, 95% CI: 3.2 to 12.3 g.l^-1) than the control group (1.7, 95% CI: -1.9 to 5.3 g.l^-1) [mean difference 6.1, 95% CI: 0.3 to 11.8 g.l^-1; P = 0.040]. The ferritin change from baseline to before surgery between groups was large in favour of the iron isomaltoside group (mean difference 296.9, 95% CI: 200.6 to 393.2 μg.l^-1; P < 0.001]. There were no differences between groups in packed red blood cell transfusions needed, surgical complications, quality of recovery and days (alive and) at home within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusion

Iron isomaltoside therapy was safe and had a minimal effect on perioperative changes in haemoglobin concentration. Given the slow recruitment and new evidence emerging during the conduct of this study, conducting a multi-centre RCT based on the current pilot trial protocol is unlikely to be feasible.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03565354.

Pre-operative iron increases haemoglobin concentration before abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Professional surgical societies recommend the identification and treatment of pre-operative anaemia in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. Our aim was to determine if pre-operative iron allows correction of haemoglobin concentration and decreased incidence of peri-operative blood transfusion in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs written in English and assessing the effect of pre-operative iron on the incidence of peri-operative allogeneic blood transfusion in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Pooled relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were obtained using models with random effects. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and quantified using the I² value. Four RCTs were retained for analysis out of 285 eligible articles. MD in haemoglobin concentration between patients with pre-operative iron and patients without pre-operative iron was of 0.81 g/dl (3 RCTs, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.33, I²: 60%, p = 0.002). Pre-operative iron did not lead to reduction in the incidence of peri-operative blood transfusion in terms of RD (4 RCTs, RD: − 0.13, 95% CI − 0.27 to 0.01, I²: 65%, p = 0.07) or RR (4 RCTs, RR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.09, I²: 64%, p = 0.09). To conclude, pre-operative iron significantly increases haemoglobin concentration by 0.81 g/dl before abdominal surgery but does not reduce the need for peri-operative blood transfusion. Important heterogeneity exists between existing RCTs in terms of populations and interventions. Future trials should target patients suffering from iron-deficiency anaemia and assess the effect of intervention on anaemia-related complications.

Hematinic and Iron Optimization in Peri-operative Anemia and Iron Deficiency

Purpose of Review

Preoperative anemia is independently associated with worse postoperative outcomes following cardiac and noncardiac surgery. This article explores the current understanding of perioperative anemia and iron deficiency with reference to definition, diagnosis, and treatment.

Recent Findings

Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia. It can arise from reduced iron intake, poor absorption, or excess iron loss. Inflammation throughout the preoperative period can drive iron sequestration, leading to a functional deficiency of iron and the development of what was referred to until recently as the “anemia of chronic disease.” Current best practice guidance supports the routine administration of preoperative intravenous iron to treat anemia despite limited evidence. This “one size fits all” approach has been called into question following results from a recent large, randomized trial (the PREVENTT trial) that assessed the use of a single dose of intravenous iron compared to placebo 10–42 days before major abdominal surgery. Although there were no improvements in patient-centered outcomes apparent during the initial hospital stay, secondary endpoints of this trial suggested there may be some late benefit after discharge from the hospital (8 weeks postoperatively). This trial raises questions on (1) the mechanisms of iron deficiency in the perioperative patient; (2) the need to reassess our opinions on generic anemia management; and (3) the need to address patient outcomes after discharge from hospital.

Summary

Despite the known associations between preoperative anemia (particularly iron deficiency anemia) and poor postoperative outcome, recent evidence suggests that administering intravenous iron relatively close to surgery does not yield a tangible short-term benefit. This is made more complex by the interplay between iron and innate immunity. Iron deficiency irrespective of hemoglobin concentration may also impact postoperative outcomes. Therefore, further research into associations between iron deficiency and postoperative outcomes, and between postoperative anemia, delayed outcomes (hospital readmission), and the efficacy of postoperative intravenous iron is required.

Iron Supplementation Effectively Ameliorates Anemia and Reduces the Need for Blood Transfusion in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Anemia is common and harmful in patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Blood transfusion (BT) is used to treat anemia, but results in a poor oncology prognosis. Iron supplementation may be effective in improving anemia and reducing the need for BT, however, the results remain controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of iron supplementation in improving hemoglobin concentrations (Hb) and reducing the need for BT.

METHODS

Up to February 10, 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase databases were searched for studies evaluating the effects of iron supplementation on CRC surgery patients. Meta-analysis was conduct using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven trials with 879 participants in total were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled findings suggested that iron supplementation effectively increased Hb (MD 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.69, P = 0.006) and reduced the risk of BT (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45, 0.78, P = 0.0002) compared with the control group. In addition, subgroup analyses showed that these benefits were observed with both oral and intravenous iron supplementation.

CONCLUSION

Iron supplementation is effective in ameliorating anemia and reducing the need for BT in CRC surgery patients.

Changes in Hepcidin Levels in an Animal Model of Anemia of Chronic Inflammation: Mechanistic Insights Related to Iron Supplementation and Hepcidin Regulation

We examined changes in hepcidin (closely associated with anemia of chronic inflammation (ACI)) and upstream regulatory pathways after intravenous (IV) iron supplementation in an ACI animal model. ACI was induced in male Sprague-Dawley rats by intraperitoneally administering complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA). Two weeks after starting CFA treatment, ACI rats received IV iron (CFA-iron) or vehicle (CFA-saline). Three days after IV iron treatment, iron profiles, hepcidin levels, and expression of proteins involved in the signaling pathways upstream of hepcidin transcription in the liver were measured. In CFA-treated rats, anemia with a concomitant increase in the levels of serum inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species occurred. In CFA-iron rats, hemoglobin (Hb) concentration was still lower than that in control rats. In CFA-saline rats, hepatic hepcidin and ferritin levels increased compared with those in control rats and were further increased in CFA-iron rats. In CFA-saline rats, NADPH oxidase- (NOX-) 2, NOX-4, and superoxide dismutase levels in the liver were upregulated compared with those in control rats and their levels were further increased in CFA-iron rats. In CFA-saline rats, activities of the IL-6/STAT and BMP/SMAD pathways were enhanced in the liver compared with those in control rats and their levels were further increased in CFA-iron rats, whereas IL-6 expression remained unaffected after IV iron administration. In HepG2 cells, iron caused phosphorylation of STAT-3 and SMAD1/5 and knockdown of STAT-3 and SMAD1/5 using siRNAs reduced iron-induced hepcidin upregulation to levels similar to those in corresponding control cells. Renal erythropoietin expression and serum erythroferrone concentration were lower in CFA-iron rats than those in control rats. In ACI rats, IV iron supplementation did not recover Hb within three days despite an increase in hepatic ferritin levels, which might be attributable to an additional increase in hepcidin levels that was already upregulated under ACI conditions. Both STAT-3 phosphorylation and SMAD1/5 phosphorylation were associated with hepcidin upregulation after IV iron treatment, and this seems to be linked to iron-induced oxidative stress.

Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.

The dynamic effects of preoperative intravenous iron in anaemic patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe the dynamic changes in blood work following individual adjusted dosage of intravenously administered iron(III) isomaltoside in a 4-week period prior to surgery in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, observational cohort study with prospectively collected data, including patients with colorectal cancer receiving preoperative treatment with iron(III) isomaltoside. Blood samples were taken at baseline, 1 week, 2 weeks and 4 weeks after initial treatment. Sixty-two patients were included in the study.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were included for final analysis. The mean increase in haemoglobin was 0.77 g/dl (95% CI 0.52-1.03 g/dl, P < 0.0001) at week 1, 1.5 g/dl (95% CI 1.21-1.80 g/dl, P < 0.0001) at week 2 and 2.13 g/dl (95% CI 1.71-2.55 g/dl, P < 0.0001) at week 4. Patients with severe anaemia (<9.02 g/dl) showed the largest increase in haemoglobin during the treatment course (2.92 g/dl, 95% CI 2.27-3.58 g/dl, P < 0.0001). Patients with mild anaemia (>10.31 g/dl) did not show a significant increase (0.66 g/dl, 95% CI -0.29-1.61 g/dl, P = 0.17). The mean of transferrin saturation after 4 weeks was 8% (95% CI 6%-10%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

After intravenously administered iron, patients with severe anaemia had the most substantial increase in haemoglobin, and the increase was largest after 4 weeks. Patients with mild anaemia did not have an increase in haemoglobin during the treatment course. The vast majority of patients still had iron deficiency at surgery 4 weeks after the initial treatment.

Rationale and design of the intravenous iron for treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery trial

Background Approximately 20% to 30% of patients awaiting cardiac surgery are anemic. Anemia increases the likelihood of requiring a red cell transfusion and is associated with increased complications, intensive care, and hospital stay following surgery. Iron deficiency is the commonest cause of anemia and preoperative intravenous (IV) iron therapy thus may improve anemia and therefore patient outcome following cardiac surgery. We have initiated the intravenous iron for treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery (ITACS) Trial to test the hypothesis that in patients with anemia awaiting elective cardiac surgery, IV iron will reduce complications, and facilitate recovery after surgery. Methods ITACS is a 1,000 patient, international randomized trial in patients with anemia undergoing elective cardiac surgery. The patients, health care providers, data collectors, and statistician are blinded to whether patients receive IV iron 1,000 mg, or placebo, at 1-26 weeks before their planned date of surgery. The primary endpoint is the number of days alive and at home up to 90 days after surgery. Results To date, ITACS has enrolled 615 patients in 30 hospitals in 9 countries. Patient mean (SD) age is 66 (12) years, 63% are male, with a mean (SD) hemoglobin at baseline of 118 (12) g/L; 40% have evidence (ferritin <100 ng/mL and/or transferrin saturation <25%) suggestive of iron deficiency. Most (59%) patients have undergone coronary artery surgery with or without valve surgery. Conclusions The ITACS Trial will be the largest study yet conducted to ascertain the benefits and risks of IV iron administration in anemic patients awaiting cardiac surgery.

Efficacy of Different Interventions to Reduce Pre- or Perioperative Blood Transfusion Rate in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The high proportion of blood transfusions before and during surgery carries unnecessary risk and results in poor prognosis in colorectal cancer patients. Different pharmacological interventions (i.e., iron supplement or recombinant erythropoietin) to reduce blood transfusion rates have shown inconclusive results. Methods: This network meta-analysis (NMA) consisted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different pharmacologic interventions (i.e., iron supplementation or recombinant erythropoietin) to reduce the blood transfusion rate. NMA statistics were conducted using the frequentist model. Results: Seven RCTs (688 participants) were included in this study. The NMA demonstrated that the combination of high-dose recombinant human erythropoietin and oral iron supplements was associated with the least probability of receiving a blood transfusion [odds ratio = 0.24, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs): 0.08 to 0.73] and best reduced the amount of blood transfused if blood transfusion was necessary (mean difference = −2.62 U, 95% CI: −3.55 to −1.70 U) when compared to the placebo/control group. None of the investigated interventions were associated with any significantly different dropout rate compared to the placebo/control group. Conclusions: The combination of high-dose recombinant human erythropoietin and oral iron supplements might be considered as a choice for reducing the rate of blood transfusion in patients with colorectal cancer. However, future large-scale RCT with long-term follow-up should be warranted to approve the long-term safety.

Need for preoperative anemia management clinics in Japan: initiatives at a university hospital in the USA

Untreated preoperative anemia increases the risk of morbidity and mortality and there is increasing evidence that early intervention for preoperative anemia improves outcomes after major surgery. Accordingly, anemia management clinics have been established in various institutions in the USA. As an example, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics outpatient clinic treats pre-surgical anemic patients, who undergo major surgery with anticipated blood loss of more than 500 mL, by providing effective standardized care in a timely manner. This standardized care is an integral part of patient blood management to reduce perioperative blood transfusion and improve patient outcomes. The importance of preoperative anemia management has not yet been sufficiently recognized in Japan. Timely intervention for preoperative anemia should be incorporated into routine pre-surgical patient care in Japan.

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 Anemia Treatment with Intravenous Iron Therapy in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Preoperative anemia is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. As a result of the increased incidence of chronic blood loss and iron deficiency anemia in abdominal surgery patients and its impact on patient outcomes, we systematically evaluated the quality of evidence for preoperative intravenous (IV) administration of iron to patients with anemia undergoing major abdominal surgery with the focus on clinical outcomes.

Methods

In this systematic review, PubMed, Cochrane, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web Of Science, and Excerpta Medica Database databases were searched up to 2019 using specific keywords. Inclusion criteria were patients that were over 18 years of age, underwent abdominal surgery, and received an IV iron treatment in the preoperative setting.

Results

The nine studies included in the final systematic review do not provide consistent evidence of a reduced incidence of allogeneic blood transfusions with preoperative IV iron administration. However, IV iron administration did consistently cause a significant increase in hemoglobin levels relative to oral iron therapy or no iron.

Conclusion

Overall, these findings are consistent in that IV iron administration is highly effective at rapidly increasing hemoglobin levels in patients with iron deficiency anemia undergoing major abdominal surgery. Unfortunately, there is currently no evidence of reduced incidence of allogeneic blood transfusions or other enhanced outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01628-7.

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

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anemia is a common comorbidity that often necessitates allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT). As there is a risk associated with blood transfusions, preoperative intravenous iron (IV) has been proposed to increase the hemoglobin to reduce perioperative transfusion; however, randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating this efficacy for IV iron are small, limited, and inconclusive. Consequently, a meta-analysis that pools these studies may provide new and clinically useful information.

METHODS/DESIGN

Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews; Cochrane-controlled trial registry; Scopus; registries of health technology assessment and clinical trials; Web of Science; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; Clinicaltrials.gov; and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) were searched. Also, we screened all the retrieved reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance (i.e., relevant, irrelevant, or potentially relevant). Then, we screened full texts of those citations identified as potentially applicable.

RESULTS

Our search found 3195 citations and ten RCTs (1039 participants) that met our inclusion criteria. Preoperative IV iron supplementation significantly decreases ABT by 16% (risk ratio (RR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.99, p = 0.04). In addition, preoperatively, hemoglobin levels increased after receiving IV iron (mean difference [MD] between the study groups: 7.15 g/L, 95% CI: 2.26, 12.04 g/L, p = 0.004) and at follow-up >  4 weeks postoperatively (MD: 6.46 g/L, 95% CI: 3.10, 9.81, p = 0.0002). Iron injection was not associated with increased incidence of non-serious or serious adverse effects across groups (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.65, p = 0.52) and (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.44, 2.10, p = 0.92) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

With moderate certainty, due to the high risk of bias in some studies in one or two domains, we found intravenous iron supplementation is associated with a significant decrease in the blood transfusions rate, and modest hemoglobin concentrations rise when injected pre-surgery compared with placebo or oral iron supplementation. However, further full-scale randomized controlled trials with robust methodology are required. In particular, the safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of different intravenous iron preparations require further evaluation.

Perioperative blood transfusion is not an independent predictor for worse outcomes in retroperitoneal sarcoma surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery for retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma (RPS) is technically challenging, often requiring perioperative red blood cell transfusion (PBT). In other cancers, controversy exists regarding the association of PBT and oncologic outcomes. No study has assessed this association in primary RPS, or identified factors associated with PBT.

METHODS

Data was collected on all resected primary RPS between 2006 and 2020 at The Ottawa Hospital (Canada) and University Hospital Birmingham (United Kingdom). 'PBT' denotes transfusion given one week before surgery until discharge. Multivariable regression (MVA) identified clinicopathologic factors associated with PBT and assessed PBT association with oncologic outcomes. Surgical complexity was measured using resected organ score (ROS) and patterns of resection.

RESULTS

192 patients were included with 98 (50.8%) receiving PBT. Median follow-up was 38.2 months. High tumour grade (OR 2.20, P = 0.048), preoperative anemia (OR 2.78, P = 0.020), blood loss >1000 mL (OR 4.89, P = 0.004) and ROS >2 (OR 2.29, P = 0.026) were associated with PBT on MVA. A direct linear relationship was observed between higher ROS and increasing units of PBT (β = 0.586, P = 0.038). Increasingly complex patterns of resection were associated with increasing odds of PBT. PBT was associated with severe post-operative complications (P = 0.008) on MVA. Univariable association between PBT and 5-year disease-free or overall survival was lost upon MVA.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical complexity and high tumour grade are potentially related to PBT. Oncologic outcomes are not predicted by PBT but are better explained by tumour grade which subsequently may increase surgical complexity. Strategies to reduce PBT should be considered in primary RPS patients.

Real-world results of the implementation of preoperative anaemia clinic with intravenous iron therapy for treating iron-deficiency anaemia: a propensity-matched case-control study

Background

Preoperative anaemia is associated with blood transfusion and longer hospital length of stay. Preoperative iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) can be treated with oral or intravenous (IV) iron. IV iron can raise haemoglobin faster compared with oral iron. However, its ability to reduce blood transfusion and length of stay in clinical trials is inconclusive. This study aims to compare blood transfusion and hospital length of stay between anemic patients who received preoperative IV iron versus standard care, after implementation of a protocol in 2017 to screen patients for preoperative IDA, and its treatment with IV iron.

Methods

Retrospective before-after cohort study comparing 89 patients who received IV iron preoperatively in 2017, with historic patients who received oral iron therapy (selected by propensity score matching (PSM) from historic cohort of 7,542 patients who underwent surgery in 2016). Propensity score was calculated using ASA status, age, gender, surgical discipline, surgical risk and preoperative haemoglobin concentration. Both 1:1 and 1:2 matching were performed as sensitivity analysis.

Results

After PSM, there was no statistically significant difference in distribution of preoperative clinical variables. There was no significant difference in proportion of cases requiring transfusion nor a difference in average units transfused per patient. IV iron cohort stayed in hospital on average 8.0 days compared to non-IV iron cohort 14.1–15.1 days (P=0.006, P=0.013 respectively). Average time from IV iron therapy to surgery was 10.5 days.

Conclusions

Preoperative IV iron therapy for patients with IDA undergoing elective surgery may not reduce perioperative blood transfusion, but this could be due to the short time between therapy and surgery. Implementation of IV iron therapy may reduce hospital length of stay compared to standard care for anemic patients, although this may be enhanced by concomitant improvement in perioperative care.

Intravenous Iron Isomaltoside 1000 Reduces Postoperative Anemia in Patients Undergoing Elective Urologic Surgery and Those with Urosepsis

Purpose

Postoperative anemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery. Anemia is also a common feature during sepsis. Therefore, here, we aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of intravenous iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer^®) in patients undergoing elective urologic surgery and in those with urosepsis.

Materials and Methods

This multicenter study was conducted through the review of the medical records of patients with postoperative anemia undergoing elective urologic surgery or with urosepsis in a multicenter hospital. Patients received a single intravenous iron isomaltoside (IIM), and their hemoglobin (Hb) level was evaluated before and after administration of IIM. Safety data included adverse effects and hypersensitivity reactions. In addition, the patients were divided into three groups (200 mg, 400 mg, and 600 mg IIM) to compare Hb changes before and after the administration of IIM.

Results

The study analyzed 52 men and 30 women with a mean age of 67 years. There was a significant difference between pre-treatment Hb and post-treatment Hb according to the type of the surgery after administration (p=0.01) of IIM in patients with postoperative anemia, and the mean preoperative Hb before IIM administration was 8.5 g/dL and that after IIM administration was 9.9 g/dL (p=0.006) in patients with urosepsis. The mean preoperative Hb changed from 10 g/dL to 11 g/dL after administration (p<0.001) of IIM in the whole cohort. There were no side effects due to the administration of intravenous IIM.

Conclusion

A single perioperative intravenous injection of IIM 1000 significantly increased the Hb level in patients with anemia who underwent urologic elective surgery. Moreover, this treatment can be considered to have potential clinical benefits for anemia caused by sepsis.

Iron therapy for preoperative anaemia

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anaemia is common and occurs in 5% to 76% of patients preoperatively. It is associated with an increased risk of perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion, longer hospital stay, and increased morbidity and mortality. Iron deficiency is one of the most common causes of anaemia. Oral and intravenous iron therapy can be used to treat anaemia. Parenteral iron preparations have been shown to be more effective in conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic heart failure and postpartum haemorrhage due to rapid correction of iron stores. A limited number of studies has investigated iron therapy for the treatment of preoperative anaemia. The aim of this Cochrane Review is to summarise the evidence for iron supplementation, both enteral and parenteral, for the management of preoperative anaemia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of preoperative iron therapy (enteral or parenteral) in reducing the need for allogeneic blood transfusions in anaemic patients undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 30 July 2018. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic and Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), PubMed, and clinical trials registries, and we screened reference lists. We ran a top-up search on 28 November 2019; one study is now awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared preoperative iron monotherapy to placebo, no treatment, standard care or another form of iron therapy for anaemic adults undergoing surgery. We defined anaemia as haemoglobin values less than 13 g/dL for males and 12 g/dL for non-pregnant females.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected data and a third review author checked all collected data. Data were collected on the proportion of patients who receive a blood transfusion, the amount of blood transfused per patient (units), quality of life, ferritin levels and haemoglobin levels, measured as continuous variables at the following predetermined time points: pretreatment (baseline), preoperatively but postintervention, and postoperatively. We performed statistical analysis using the Cochrane software, Review Manager 5. We summarised outcome data in tables and forest plots. We used the GRADE approach to describe the quality of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs, with a total of 372 participants, evaluated preoperative iron therapy to correct anaemia before planned surgery. Four studies compared iron therapy (either oral (one study) or intravenous (three studies)) with no treatment, placebo or usual care, and two studies compared intravenous iron therapy with oral iron therapy. Iron therapy was delivered over a range of periods that varied from 48 hours to three weeks prior to surgery. The 372 participants in our analysis fall far short of the 819 required - as calculated by our information size calculation - to detect a 30% reduction in blood transfusions. Five trials, involving 310 people, reported the proportion of participants who received allogeneic blood transfusions. Meta-analysis of iron therapy versus placebo or standard care showed no difference in the proportion of participants who received a blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.70; 4 studies, 200 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study that compared oral versus intravenous iron therapy measured this outcome, and reported no difference in risk of transfusion between groups. There was no difference between the iron therapy and placebo/standard care groups for haemoglobin level preoperatively at the end of the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.63 g/dL, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.34; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-quality evidence). However, intravenous iron therapy produced an increase in preoperative postintervention haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron (MD 1.23 g/dL, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.65; 2 studies, 172 participants; low-quality evidence). Ferritin levels were increased by intravenous iron, both when compared to standard care ((MD 149.00, 95% CI 25.84 to 272.16; 1 study, 63 participants; low-quality evidence) or to oral iron (MD 395.03 ng/mL, 95% CI 227.72 to 562.35; 2 studies, 151 participants; low-quality evidence). Not all studies measured quality of life, short-term mortality or postoperative morbidity. Some measured the outcomes, but did not report the data, and the studies which did report the data were underpowered. Therefore, uncertainty remains regarding these outcomes. The inclusion of new research in the future is very likely to change these results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of iron therapy for preoperative anaemia does not show a clinically significant reduction in the proportion of trial participants who received an allogeneic blood transfusion compared to no iron therapy. Results for intravenous iron are consistent with a greater increase in haemoglobin and ferritin when compared to oral iron, but do not provide reliable evidence. These conclusions are drawn from six studies, three of which included very small numbers of participants. Further, well-designed, adequately powered, RCTs are required to determine the true effectiveness of iron therapy for preoperative anaemia. Two studies are currently in progress, and will include 1500 randomised participants.

[Diagnostics and treatment of preoperative anemia]

Approximately 14-40% of patients in industrialized countries present with preoperative anemia. Depending on the severity, anemia is associates with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. One of the most important causes of preoperative anemia is iron deficiency which is usually easy to treat. Implemented in the multimodal concept of patient blood management, the diagnostics and treatment of preoperative anemia are important aspects for improvement of perioperative outcome. Adequate and early diagnostics of the cause of anemia before treatment is important because treatment options, e.g. with iron, erythropoetin, folic acid and vitamin B₁₂, may be expensive, may have severe side effects, and in the case of a wrong indication, will not improve anemia. In addition, an adequate regeneration of the erythrocyte volume requires time. This review article presents important aspects of the epidemiology and prognostic implications of preoperative anemia, the physiology and pathophysiology of anemia as well as diagnostic features and the evidence base for preoperative treatment options.

Intravenous iron versus oral iron or observation for gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a common condition in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Current evidence for the use of intravenous compared with oral iron in this clinical setting is inconclusive. A systematic review was performed to assess evidence on the efficacy of intravenous iron versus oral/observation in gastrointestinal cancer patients in the preoperative and postoperative setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Medline and Embase from inception until December 2017 with no language restrictions. Outcomes included hemoglobin response, red blood cell transfusion, and adverse events. Screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal were performed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tools for randomized and nonrandomized studies.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies (three randomized-controlled trials and seven nonrandomized studies) were included. Of the six preoperative studies, five reported that hemoglobin was significantly higher in the intravenous group compared with oral iron/observation. Among the four postoperative studies, three studies suggested that hemoglobin was significantly higher in the intravenous group compared with oral iron/observation. The overall risk of bias for all randomized-controlled trials was low. Quality assessments for nonrandomized studies found the risk of bias to be moderate for four studies and critical for three studies.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of the current body of evidence, there is a likely benefit to the use of intravenous iron in this patient population. Further confirmatory research is needed to draw empirical conclusions.

The evidence-based preoperative assessment for the otolaryngologist

There is a narrow window of opportunity between surgical scheduling and the operative date to optimize patients for an elective surgical procedure. Traditionally, preoperative care has involved extended routine testing batteries with intermittent referrals for medical clearance. These traditions are costly, inefficient, and yield no clear reduction in perioperative morbidity and mortality. Evidence, which has evolved over the past decade, suggests that optimal preoperative care requires a patient-centric, personalized, and often multidisciplinary approach. We present an up-to-date overview of this literature with a focus on the otolaryngologic surgical population. An algorithmic approach to preoperative patient assessment is also proposed in hopes of both optimizing patient outcome and streamlining routine clinical workflow. Laryngoscope, 130:38-44, 2020.

Red blood cell transfusion and its alternatives in oncologic surgery-A critical evaluation

Although blood transfusions have been used for more than 100 years and their potential to save lives is indisputable, there is still limited data on medium- and long-term outcomes after hemotherapy. Until recently, red blood cell transfusions represented the most commonly employed treatment for cancer anemia. As transfusions have been related to worse patient outcome in oncologic surgery, preventive strategies and alternative treatment approaches in the perioperative setting are warranted. This review aims to evaluate the evidence concerning the impact of transfusion on the course of malignant diseases with a focus on oncologic surgery and to provide a bundle of measures to improve patient care. The perioperative period is pivotal in determining long-term cancer outcome. An increasingly recognized area for improvement during this highly sensitive period is the treatment of anemia for three main reasons: Firstly, anemia has been recognized as an independent predictor of poor prognosis in cancer patients. Secondly, anemia is largely undertreated. Thirdly and probably most importantly, anemia therapy relied and often still relies heavily on red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, which may be an often suboptimal stopgap treatment. Perioperative RBC transfusions should be kept to a minimum due to growing concerns regarding the associated risks, which this review tries to clarify by providing an update of recent literature. This review furthermore discusses treatments for anemia and provides best-practice approaches to improve perioperative management of oncology patients undergoing surgery.

Anemia and Iron Deficiency in Cancer Patients: Role of Iron Replacement Therapy

Anemia in cancer patients is quite common, with remarkable negative impacts on quality of life and overall prognosis. The pathogenesis is complex and typically multifactorial, with iron deficiency (ID) often being a major and potentially treatable contributor. In turn, ID in cancer patients can be due to multiple concurring mechanisms, including bleeding (e.g., in gastrointestinal cancers or after surgery), malnutrition, medications, and hepcidin-driven iron sequestration into macrophages with subsequent iron-restricted erythropoiesis. Indeed, either absolute or functional iron deficiency (AID or FID) can occur. While for absolute ID there is a general consensus regarding the laboratory definition (that is ferritin levels <100 ng/mL ± transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20%), a shared definition of functional ID is still lacking. Current therapeutic options in cancer anemia include iron replacement, erythropoietic stimulating agents (ESAs), and blood transfusions. The latter should be kept to a minimum, because of concerns regarding risks, costs, and limited resources. Iron therapy has proved to be a valid approach to enhance efficacy of ESAs and to reduce transfusion need. Available guidelines focus mainly on patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia, and generally suggest intravenous (IV) iron when AID or FID is present. However, in the case of FID, the upper limit of ferritin in association with TSAT <20% at which iron should be prescribed is a matter of controversy, ranging up to 800 ng/mL. An increasingly recognized indication to IV iron in cancer patients is represented by preoperative anemia in elective oncologic surgery. In this setting, the primary goal of treatment is to decrease the need of blood transfusions in the perioperative period, rather than improving anemia-related symptoms as in chemotherapy-associated anemia. Protocols are mainly based on experiences of Patient Blood Management (PBM) in non-oncologic surgery, but no specific guidelines are available for oncologic surgery. Here we discuss some possible approaches to the management of ID in cancer patients in different clinical settings, based on current guidelines and recommendations, emphasizing the need for further research in the field.

Multimodal Prehabilitation Programs as a Bundle of Care in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation reflects a proactive process of preoperative optimization undertaken between cancer diagnosis and definitive surgical treatment, with the intent of improving physiological capacity to withstand the major insult of surgery. Prehabilitation before GI cancer surgery is currently not widely adopted, and most research has focused on unimodal interventions such as exercise therapy, nutritional supplementation, and hematinic optimization. A review of the existing literature was undertaken to investigate the impact of multimodal prehabilitation programs as a "bundle of care."

DATA SOURCE

A systematic literature search was performed utilizing Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases.

STUDY SELECTION

The quality of studies was assessed by using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias (randomized trials) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale (cohort studies).

INTERVENTION

Studies were chosen that involved pre-operative optimization of patients before GI cancer surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary outcome measured was the impact of prehabilitation programs on preoperative fitness and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 544 studies identified, 20 were included in the qualitative analysis. Two trials investigated the impact of multimodal prehabilitation (exercise, nutritional supplementation, anxiety management). Trials exploring prehabilitation with unimodal interventions included impact of exercise therapy (7 trials), impact of preoperative iron replacement (5 trials), nutritional optimization (5 trials), and impact of preoperative smoking cessation (2 trials). Compliance within the identified studies was variable (range: 16%-100%).

LIMITATIONS

There is a lack of adequately powered trials that utilize objective risk stratification and uniform end points. As such, a meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneity in study design.

CONCLUSION

Although small studies are supportive of multimodal interventions, there are insufficient data to make a conclusion about the integration of prehabilitation in GI cancer surgery as a bundle of care. Larger, prospective trials, utilizing uniform objective risk stratification and structured interventions, with predefined clinical and health economic end points, are required before definitive value can be assigned to prehabilitation programs.

Open questions and misconceptions in the diagnosis and management of anemia in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding

Despite high prevalence of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in patients with acute or chronic gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), IDA and iron deficiency (ID) are frequently untreated. Reasons may be misconceptions about the impact and diagnosis of IDA and the efficacy of new treatments. Addressing these misconceptions, this article summarizes current evidence for better understanding and management of GIB-associated IDA. Despite only few controlled studies evaluated the efficacy of iron treatment in patients with GIB, there is consistent evidence suggesting that: (a) IDA should be diligently investigated, (b) effective treatment of ID/IDA improves outcomes such as health-related quality of life and can avoid severe cardiovascular consequences, and (c) intravenous iron should be considered as well-tolerated treatment in this setting. Overall, the misconceptions and practices outlined in this article should be replaced with strategies that are more in line with current guidelines and best practice in GIB and other underlying conditions of ID/IDA.

Variation in Transfusion Practices and the Association with Perioperative Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair and Lower Extremity Arterial Bypass in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

Blood transfusions are associated with adverse events. We examined perioperative transfusion practices and associated complications following open vascular procedures nationwide in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI).

METHODS

Adults undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) and lower extremity arterial bypass (Bypass) within VQI (2003-2016) were identified. All emergent cases, patients with preoperative hemoglobin <7 g/dL, preoperative hospitalization >1 day, or a return to operating room during the index hospitalization were excluded. Units of red blood cells transfused were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Patient, center, and procedural factors were evaluated. Multivariable mixed effects negative binomial regression and multivariable logistic regression were performed.

RESULTS

We identified 24,131 procedures (OAR 3885, 16.1%; Bypass 20,246, 83.9%) among 22,532 patients (10.1% had >1 procedure). Overall, 37.5% of OAR and 19.5% of Bypass were transfused. Transfusion rates varied across estimated blood loss quartiles and across various preoperative hemoglobin levels. The overall rate of postoperative MI and death was 4.0% and 1.8% for OAR, and 2.2% and 0.7% for Bypass, respectively. In univariate and multivariable analysis, transfusions were associated with an increased risk of postoperative MI and death. A mixed effects negative binomial model demonstrated variation in transfusions across centers (P < 0.001). Female gender and preoperative anemia were significantly associated with transfusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood transfusions are variable across centers in VQI. Transfusions are associated with a higher postoperative MI and death after OAR and Bypass. Efforts to reduce transfusion may focus on center variability, gender, and preoperative anemia.

Hemorrhage and Transfusions in the Surgical Patient

Hemorrhage remains the leading cause of intra-operative deaths and those in the first 24 h. Many cardiovascular and hepatobiliary procedures result in massive hemorrhage and postpartum hemorrhage events in labor and delivery place the patient at a high risk for mortality. Both upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding (e.g., diverticulosis, esophageal and gastric varices, and peptic ulcer disease) can also result in significant blood loss requiring massive transfusion and resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock. Therefore, safe, timely, and effective transfusion of blood products is critical. The aim of this chapter is to provide clinicians with a discussion of the current literature on the various blood component products, their indications, and unique hemostatic conditions in the surgical patient. While the majority of data concerning optimal management of acquired coagulopathy and hemorrhagic shock resuscitation is based on trauma patients, many of the principles can and should be applied to the surgical patient (or likely any patient) with profound hemorrhage.

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.

Ferric carboxymaltose reduces transfusions and hospital stay in patients with colon cancer and anemia

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) administration vs. no-IV iron in colon cancer (CC) anemic patients undergoing elective surgery with curative intention.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, observational study including two cohorts of consecutive CC anemic patients: the no-IV iron treatment group was obtained retrospectively while FCM-treated patients were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 266 patients were included: 111 received FCM (median dose 1000 mg) and 155 were no-IV iron subjects. Both groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics, tumor location, surgical approach, and intra-operative bleeding severity. The FCM group showed a significant lower need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during the study (9.9 vs. 38.7%; OR: 5.9, p < 0.001). In spite of lower hemoglobin levels at baseline diagnosis and lower transfusion rates in the FCM group, the proportion of responders was significantly higher with respect to the no-IV group both at hospital admission (48.1 vs. 20.0%, p < 0.0001) and at 30 days post-surgery (80.0 vs. 48.9%, p < 0.0001). The percentage of patients with normalized hemoglobin levels was also higher in the FCM group (40.0 vs. 26.7% at 30 days, p < 0.05). A lower number of reinterventions and post-surgery complications were seen in the FCM group (20.7 vs. 26.5%; p = 0.311). The FCM group presented a significant shorter hospital stay (8.4 ± 6.8 vs. 10.9 ± 12.4 days to discharge; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative ferric carboxymaltose treatment in patients with CC and iron deficiency anemia significantly reduced RBC transfusion requirements and hospital length of stay, reaching higher response rates and percentages of normalized hemoglobin levels both at hospital admission and 30 days post-surgery.

A cohort investigation of anaemia, treatment and the use of allogeneic blood transfusion in colorectal cancer surgery

Introduction

Preoperative identification and treatment of anaemia is advocated as part of Patient Blood Management due to the association of adverse outcome with the perioperative use of blood transfusion. This study aimed to establish the rate of anaemia identification, treatment and implications of this preoperative anaemia on ARBT use.

Methods

All patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer over 18 months at a single Tertiary Centre were reviewed. Electronic databases and patient casenotes were reviewed to yield required data.

Results

Complete data was available on 201 patients. 67% (n = 135) had haemoglobin tested at presentation. There was an inverse correlation between tumour size and initial haemoglobin (P < 0.01, Rs = −0.3). Initial haemoglobin levels were significantly lower in patients with right colonic tumours (P < 0.01). Patients who were anaemic preoperatively received a mean 0.91 units (95%CI 0–0.7) per patient which was significantly higher than non-anaemic patients (0.3 units [95%CI 0–1.3], P < 0.01). For every 1 g/dl preoperative haemoglobin increase, the likelihood of transfusion was reduced by approximately 40% (OR 0.57 [95%CI 0.458–0.708], P < 0.01). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with fewer anaemic patients transfused (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Haemoglobin levels should be routinely checked at diagnosis of colorectal cancer, particularly those with large or right sided lesions. Early identification of anaemia allows initiation of treatment which may reduce transfusion risk even with modest haemoglobin rises. The correct treatment of this anaemia needs to be established.

•

Exclusion of anaemia is underperformed during initial management of colorectal cancer.

•

Anaemia is more frequently associated with larger diameter and right sided tumours.

•

When identified, preoperative anaemia is undertreated.

•

Reduction in severity of anaemia at surgery is associated with reduced transfusion requirements.

Iron therapy for the treatment of preoperative anaemia in patients with colorectal carcinoma: a systematic review

AIM

Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative iron supplementation in the treatment of anaemia, and its effect on the postoperative recovery of patients undergoing surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

METHOD

This systematic review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library to assess current evidence on the role of iron supplementation in the treatment of preoperative anaemia. Our main outcomes were absolute increase in haemoglobin, blood transfusion rate and postoperative morbidity. Main inclusion criteria were: preoperative iron supplementation, presence of colorectal carcinoma and elective surgery. The Downs-Black questionnaire was used for quality assessment of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 605 studies analysed, seven, three randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies, were included. Despite iron supplementation, the three randomized controlled trials showed a decrease in haemoglobin level. This was contrary to the four cohort studies which all showed a significant increase. All studies showed a decreased blood transfusion rate following iron supplementation. None of the included studies assessed postoperative morbidity. Due to heterogeneity in study design, duration of treatment, dosages and variation in iron substrates, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

In anaemic patients who require surgery for colorectal carcinoma, current evidence is of inadequate quality to draw a definitive conclusion on the efficacy of the various measures to treat preoperative anaemia.

Restrictive blood transfusion protocol in malignant upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic resections patients reduces blood transfusions with no increase in patient morbidity

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a restrictive blood transfusion protocol on the number of transfusions performed and the related effect on patient morbidity.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed using our prospective database with information from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2013. The restrictive blood transfusion protocol was implemented in September 2011, so this date served as the separation point for the date of operation criteria.

RESULTS

For the study, 415 patients undergoing operation for an abdominal malignancy were reviewed. After the restrictive blood transfusion protocol, the percentage of patients who received blood dropped from 35.6% to 28.3%. The percentage of patients who experienced perioperative complication was significantly higher in transfused patients compared with those who did not receive blood (P = .0001). There was no statistical significance observed between the 5 groups for the length of stay at the hospital after their procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The restrictive blood transfusion protocol resulted in a reduction of the percentage of patients transfused, and there was no evidence to suggest that it negatively affected the outcomes of patients in this group.

[Preoperative management of anemia in oncologic surgery]

Preoperative anemia in patients with cancer is highly prevalent, is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and is a risk factor for transfusion. There is evidence that patients who undergo transfusions have higher morbidity, increased cancer recurrence and poorer survival. The pathophysiology of anemia is multifactorial, with an inflammatory component to which chronic blood loss and nutritional deficiencies can be associated. Therefore, preoperative anemia in patients with cancer should be treated appropriately, given that there is sufficient time in the preoperative period. Of the currently available options, parenteral iron is an effective alternative, especially for those types of cancer that have an associated hemorrhagic component.

Multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing ferric(III)carboxymaltose infusion with oral iron supplementation in the treatment of preoperative anaemia in colorectal cancer patients

Background

At least a third of patients with a colorectal carcinoma who are candidate for surgery, are anaemic preoperatively. Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In general practice, little attention is paid to these anaemic patients. Some will have oral iron prescribed others not. The waiting period prior to elective colorectal surgery could be used to optimize a patients’ physiological status. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of preoperative intravenous iron supplementation in comparison with the standard preoperative oral supplementation in anaemic patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods/Design

In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with an M0-staged colorectal carcinoma who are scheduled for curative resection and with a proven iron deficiency anaemia are eligible for inclusion. Main exclusion criteria are palliative surgery, metastatic disease, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy = no exclusion) and the use of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin within three months before inclusion or a blood transfusion within a month before inclusion. Primary endpoint is the percentage of patients that achieve normalisation of the haemoglobin level between the start of the treatment and the day of admission for surgery. This study is a superiority trial, hypothesizing a greater proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint in favour of iron infusion compared to oral supplementation. A total of 198 patients will be randomized to either ferric(III)carboxymaltose infusion in the intervention arm or ferrofumarate in the control arm. This study will be performed in ten centres nationwide and one centre in Ireland.

Discussion

This is the first randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of preoperative iron supplementation in exclusively anaemic patients with a colorectal carcinoma. Our trial hypotheses a more profound haemoglobin increase with intravenous iron which may contribute to a superior optimisation of the patient’s condition and possibly a decrease in postoperative morbidity.

Trial registration

ClincalTrials.gov: NCT02243735.

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.

Pre-operative anaemia

Pre-operative anaemia is a relatively common finding, affecting a third of patients undergoing elective surgery. Traditionally associated with chronic disease, management has historically focused on the use of blood transfusion as a solution for anaemia in the peri-operative period. Data from large series now suggest that anaemia is an independent risk associated with poor outcome in both cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. Furthermore, blood transfusion does not appear to ameliorate this risk, and in fact may increase the risk of postoperative complications and hospital length of stay. Consequently, there is a need to identify, diagnose and manage pre-operative anaemia to reduce surgical risk. Discoveries in the pathways of iron metabolism have found that chronic disease can cause a state of functional iron deficiency leading to anaemia. The key iron regulatory protein hepcidin, activated in response to inflammation, inhibits absorption of iron from the gastrointestinal tract and further reduces bioavailability of iron stores for red cell production. Consequently, although iron stores (predominantly ferritin) may be normal, the transport of iron either from the gastrointestinal tract or iron stores to the bone marrow is inhibited, leading to a state of 'functional' iron deficiency and subsequent anaemia. Since absorption from the gastrointestinal tract is blocked, increasing oral iron intake is ineffective, and studies are now looking at the role of intravenous iron to treat anaemia in the surgical setting. In this article, we review the incidence and impact of anaemia on the pre-operative patient. We explain how anaemia may be caused by functional iron deficiency, and how iron deficiency anaemia may be diagnosed and treated.

The safety of intravenous iron preparations: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To amass all available evidence regarding the safety of intravenous (IV) iron preparations to provide a true balance of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing IV iron to another comparator. All electronic databases until January 1, 2014, were reviewed. Primary outcome was occurrence of severe adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and other adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of type of IV iron, comparator, treated condition, and system involved.

RESULTS

A total of 103 trials published between 1965 through 2013 were included. A total of 10,390 patients were treated with IV iron compared with 4044 patients treated with oral iron, 1329 with no iron, 3335 with placebo, and 155 with intramuscular iron. There was no increased risk of SAEs with IV iron (relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.17; I(2)=9%). Subgroup analysis revealed a decreased rate of SAEs when IV iron was used to treat heart failure (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70; I(2)=0%). Severe infusion reactions were more common with IV iron (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.43-4.28; I(2)=0%). There was no increased risk of infections with IV iron. Gastrointestinal AEs were reduced with IV iron.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous iron therapy is not associated with an increased risk of SAEs or infections. Infusion reactions are more pronounced with IV iron.