Perioperative red blood cell transfusion is associated with poor functional outcome and overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

Unplanned intensive care unit readmission after surgical treatment in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma - forfeiture of surgically achieved advantages?

Postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) monitoring is an established option to ensure patient safety after resection of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. In contrast, secondary unplanned ICU readmission following complicating events during the initial postoperative course might be associated with severe morbidity and impair initially intended surgical benefit. In the present study, we assessed the prognostic impact of secondary ICU readmission and aimed to identify preoperatively ascertainable risk factors for the development of such adverse events in patients treated surgically for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Between 2013 and 2018, 240 patients were surgically treated for newly diagnosed glioblastoma at the authors' neuro-oncological center. Secondary ICU readmission was defined as any unplanned admission to the ICU during initial hospital stay. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperatively measurable risk factors for unplanned ICU readmission. Nineteen of 240 glioblastoma patients (8%) were readmitted to the ICU. Median overall survival of patients with unplanned ICU readmission was 9 months compared to 17 months for patients without secondary ICU readmission (p=0.008). Multivariable analysis identified "preoperative administration of dexamethasone > 7 days" (p=0.002) as a significant and independent predictor of secondary unplanned ICU admission. Secondary ICU readmission following surgery for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is significantly associated with poor survival and thus may negate surgically achieved prerequisites for further treatment. This underlines the indispensability of precise patient selection as well as the importance of further scientific debate on these highly relevant aspects for patient safety.

Safety of Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Cancer Surgery: An Updated Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature

BACKGROUND

Allogeneic blood transfusions in oncologic surgery are associated with increased recurrence and mortality. Adverse effects on outcome could be reduced or avoided by using intraoperative autologous blood cell salvage (IOCS). However, there are concerns regarding the safety of the autologous IOCS blood. Previous meta-analyses from 2012 and 2020 did not identify increased risk of cancer recurrence after using autologous IOCS blood. The objective of this review was to reassess a greater number of IOCS-treated patients to present an updated and more robust analysis of the current literature.

METHODS

This systematic review includes full-text articles listed in PubMed, Cochrane, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science. We analyzed publications that discussed cell salvage or autotransfusion combined with the following outcomes: cancer recurrence, mortality, survival, allogeneic transfusion rate and requirements, length of hospital stay (LOS). To rate the strength of evidence, a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) of the underlying evidence was applied.

RESULTS

In the updated meta-analysis, 7 further observational studies were added to the original 27 observational studies included in the former 2020 analysis. Studies compared either unfiltered (n = 2,311) or filtered (n = 850) IOCS (total n = 3,161) versus non-IOCS use (n = 5,342). Control patients were either treated with autologous predonated blood (n = 484), with allogeneic transfusion (n = 4,113), or did not receive a blood transfusion (n = 745). However, the current literature still contains only observational studies on these topics, and the strength of evidence remains low. The risk of cancer recurrence was reduced in recipients of autologous salvaged blood with or without LDF (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.90) compared to nontransfused patients or patients with allogeneic transfusion. There was no difference in mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71-1.27) and LOS (mean difference -0.07 days, 95% CI: -0.63 to 0.48) between patients treated with IOCS blood or those in whom IOCS was not used. Due to high heterogeneity, transfusion rates or volumes could not be analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Randomized controlled trials comparing mortality and cancer recurrence rate of IOCS with or without LDF filtration versus allogeneic blood transfusion were not found. Outcome was similar or better in patients receiving IOCS during cancer surgery compared to patients with allogeneic blood transfusion or nontransfused patients.