Safety and feasibility of phlebotomy with controlled hypovolemia to minimize blood loss in liver resections

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-2): study protocol for a phase 3 randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in liver surgery are areas of concern for surgeons, anesthesiologists, and patients alike. While various methods are employed to reduce surgical blood loss, the evidence base surrounding each intervention is limited. Hypovolemic phlebotomy, the removal of whole blood from the patient without volume replacement during liver transection, has been strongly associated with decreased bleeding and RBC transfusion in observational studies. This trial aims to investigate whether hypovolemic phlebotomy is superior to usual care in reducing RBC transfusions in liver resection.

METHODS

This study is a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial. Adult patients undergoing major hepatic resections for any indication will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either hypovolemic phlebotomy and usual care or usual care alone. Exclusion criteria will be minor resections, preoperative hemoglobin <100g/L, renal insufficiency, and other contraindication to hypovolemic phlebotomy. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients receiving at least one allogeneic RBC transfusion unit within 30 days of the onset of surgery. Secondary outcomes will include transfusion of other allogeneic blood products, blood loss, morbidity, mortality, and intraoperative physiologic parameters. The surgical team will be blinded to the intervention. Randomization will occur on the morning of surgery. The sample size will comprise 440 patients. Enrolment will occur at four Canadian academic liver surgery centers over a 4-year period. Ethics approval will be obtained at participating sites before enrolment.

DISCUSSION

The results of this randomized control trial will provide high-quality evidence regarding the use of hypovolemic phlebotomy in major liver resection and its effects on RBC transfusion. If proven to be effective, this intervention could become standard of care in liver operations internationally and become incorporated within perioperative patient blood management programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03651154 . Registered on August 29 2018.

Effect of intraoperative hypovolemic phlebotomy on transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on how to best achieve a low central venous pressure during hepatectomy for the purpose of reducing blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. We analyzed the associations between intraoperative hypovolemic phlebotomy (IOHP), transfusions, and postoperative outcomes in cancer patients undergoing hepatectomy.

METHODS

Using surgical and transfusion databases of patients who underwent hepatectomy for cancer at one institution (11 January 2011 to 22 June 2017), we retrospectively analyzed associations between IOHP and RBC transfusion on the day of surgery (primary outcome), and with total perioperative transfusions, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications (secondary outcomes). We fitted logistic regression models by inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounders and reported adjusted odds ratio (aOR).

RESULTS

There were 522 instances of IOHP performed during 683 hepatectomies, with a mean (standard deviation) volume of 396 (119) mL. The IOHP patients had a 6.9% transfusion risk on the day of surgery compared with 12.4% in non-IOHP patients (aOR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.98; P = 0.04). Total perioperative RBC transfusion tended to be lower in IOHP patients compared with non-IOHP patients (14.9% vs 22.4%, respectively; aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.16; P = 0.18). In patients with a predicted risk of ≥ 47.5% perioperative RBC transfusion, 24.6% were transfused when IOHP was used compared with 56.5% without IOHP. The incidence of severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo scores ≥ 3) was similar in patients whether or not IOHP was performed (15% vs 16% respectively; aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.54; P = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IOHP during hepatectomy was associated with less RBCs transfused on the same day of surgery. Trials comparing IOHP with other techniques to reduce blood loss and transfusion are needed in liver surgery.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes of extrahepatic recurrence in patients with post-hepatectomy recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Extrahepatic recurrence remains a major obstacle to an improved prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing hepatectomy.

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2014, we screened 1330 consecutive patients who underwent curative hepatectomy for HCC. Patients who experienced recurrence were enrolled in this study and divided into an extrahepatic recurrence (EHR) group and a pure intrahepatic recurrence (IHR) group. Clinical data and follow-up results were retrospectively collected and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 556 patients were enrolled (EHR, 52; IHR, 504). In the EHR group, the lung was the most common site of extrahepatic recurrence (53.8%), among which 67.3% had associated intrahepatic lesions. Background Hepatitis B (HR 0.282; 95% CI 0.106-0.752; P = 0.011), tumour size ≥10 cm at initial diagnosis (HR 2.679; 95% CI 1.283-5.596; P = 0.009) and blood transfusion during initial surgery (HR 2.218; 95% CI 1.132-4.346; P = 0.020) were predictive of EHR. A multidisciplinary team treated recurrent HCC. After a median follow-up period of 46 months (range, 24-192 months), the 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates in the EHR group were 60.7%, 8.9% and 0%, respectively, after recurrence, and 78.8%, 30.2% and 8.9%, respectively, after initial surgery, which were much lower than those in the IHR group.

CONCLUSION

Tumour size ≥10 cm and blood transfusion during initial surgery were predictive of extrahepatic recurrence in patients with post-hepatectomy recurrent HCC. Treatment options were limited, and long-term survival was unsatisfactory.

The safety and efficacy of hypovolemic phlebotomy on blood loss and transfusion in liver surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypovolemic phlebotomy (HP) is a novel intervention that involves intraoperative removal of whole blood (7-10 mL/kg) without volume replacement. The subsequent central venous pressure (CVP) reduction is hypothesized to decrease blood loss and the need for blood transfusion. The objective was to conduct a systematic assessment of the safety and efficacy of HP on blood loss and transfusion in the liver surgery literature.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Outcomes of interest included blood loss, allogenic red blood cell transfusion, postoperative adverse events, and CVP change. A qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were performed as appropriate.

RESULTS

Four cohort studies, one case series, and three randomized controlled trials involving 2255 patients were included. Meta-analysis of studies involving liver resections for any indication (n = 6) found no difference in transfusion (OR 0.38, p = 0.12) or incidence of adverse events with HP compared to non-use. Pooling of studies involving liver resections for an underlying pathology (n = 4) revealed HP was associated with significant reduction in transfusion (OR 0.25, p = 0.03) but no differences in blood loss (-173 mL, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

This review suggests HP is safe and associated with decreased transfusion in patients undergoing liver surgery. It supports further investigation.

Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolaemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-1): a pilot randomized clinical trial for feasibility

BACKGROUND

Major liver resection is associated with blood loss and transfusion. Observational data suggest that hypovolaemic phlebotomy can reduce these risks. This feasibility RCT compared hypovolaemic phlebotomy with the standard of care, to inform a future multicentre trial.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major liver resections were enrolled between June 2016 and January 2018. Randomization was done during surgery and the surgeons were blinded to the group allocation. For hypovolaemic phlebotomy, 7-10 ml per kg whole blood was removed, without intravenous fluid replacement. Co-primary outcomes were feasibility and estimated blood loss (EBL).

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were randomized to hypovolaemic phlebotomy (31) or standard care (31), at a rate of 3·1 patients per month, thus meeting the co-primary feasibility endpoint. The median EBL difference was -111 ml (P = 0·456). Among patients at high risk of transfusion, the median EBL difference was -448 ml (P = 0·069). Secondary feasibility endpoints were met: enrolment, blinding and target phlebotomy (mean(s.d.) 7·6(1·9) ml per kg). Blinded surgeons perceived that parenchymal resection was easier with hypovolaemic phlebotomy than standard care (16 of 31 versus 10 of 31 respectively), and guessed that hypovolaemic phlebotomy was being used with an accuracy of 65 per cent (20 of 31). There was no significant difference in overall complications (10 of 31 versus 15 of 31 patients), major complications or transfusion. Among those at high risk, transfusion was required in two of 15 versus three of nine patients (P = 0·326).

CONCLUSION

Endpoints were met successfully, but no difference in EBL was found in this feasibility study. A multicentre trial (PRICE-2) powered to identify a difference in perioperative blood transfusion is justified. Registration number: NCT02548910 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Hypovolemic phlebotomy in liver surgery is associated with decreased red blood cell transfusion

BACKGROUND

Perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is associated with poor outcomes in liver surgery. Hypovolemic phlebotomy (HP) is a novel intervention hypothesized to decrease transfusion requirements. The objective of this study was to examine this hypothesis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent liver resection at one institution (2010-2016) were included. Factors found to be predictive of transfusion on univariate analysis and those previously published were modeled using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 361 patients underwent liver resection (50% major). HP was performed in 45 patients. Phlebotomized patients had a greater proportion of primary malignancy (31% vs 18%) and major resection (84% vs 45%). Blood loss was significantly lower with phlebotomy in major resections (400 vs 700 mL). Nadir central venous pressure was significantly lower with HP (2.5 vs 5 cm H₂O). On multivariate logistic regression, HP (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.068-0.57, p = 0.0029), major liver resection (OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.64-5.18, p = 0.0003), preoperative hemoglobin < 125 g/L (OR 6.02, 95% CI 3.44-10.56, p < 0.0001), and underlying liver disease (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.27-3.95, p = 0.0051) were significantly associated with perioperative RBC transfusion.

CONCLUSION

Hypovolemic phlebotomy appears to be strongly associated with a reduction in RBC transfusion requirements in liver resection, independent of other known risk factors.

Patient blood management for liver resection: consensus statements using Delphi methodology

BACKGROUND

Blood loss and transfusion remain a significant concern in liver resection (LR). Patient blood management (PBM) programs reduce use of transfusions and improve outcomes and costs, but are not standardized for LR. This study sought to create an expert consensus statement on PBM for LR using modified Delphi methodology.

METHODS

An expert panel representing hepato-biliary surgery, anesthesiology, and transfusion medicine was invited to participate. 28 statements addressing the 3 pillars of PBM were created. Panelists were asked to rate statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Three-rounds of iterative rating and feedback were completed anonymously, followed by an in-person meeting. Consensus was reached with at least 70% agreement.

RESULTS

The 35 experts panel recommended routine pre-operative transfusion risk assessment, and investigation and management of anemia with iron supplementation. Intra-operatively, restrictive fluid administration without routine central line insertion was recommended, along with intermittent hepatic pedicle occlusion and surgical techniques considerations. Specific criteria for restrictive intra-operative and post-operative transfusion strategy were recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

PBM for LR included medical and technical interventions throughout the perioperative continuum, addressing specificities of LR. Diffusion and adoption of these recommendations can standardize PBM for LR to improve patient outcomes and resource utilization.

Red blood cell transfusion in liver resection

BACKGROUND

Several modalities exist for the management of hepatic neoplasms. Resection, the most effective approach, carries significant risk of hemorrhage. Blood loss may be corrected with red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) in the short term, but may ultimately contribute to negative outcomes.

PURPOSE

Using available literature, we seek to define the frequency and risk factors of blood loss and transfusion following hepatectomy. The impact of blood loss and RBCT on short- and long-term outcomes is explored with an emphasis on peri-operative methods to reduce hemorrhage and transfusion.

RESULTS

Following hepatic surgery, 25.2-56.8% of patients receive RBCT. Patients who receive RBCT are at increased risk of surgical morbidity in a dose-dependent manner. The relationship between blood transfusion and surgical mortality is less apparent. RBCT might also impact long-term oncologic outcomes including disease recurrence and overall survival. Risk factors for bleeding and blood transfusion include hemoglobin concentration < 12.5 g/dL, thrombocytopenia, pre-operative biliary drainage, presence of background liver disease (such as cirrhosis), coronary artery disease, male gender, tumor characteristics (type, size, location, presence of vascular involvement), extent of hepatectomy, concomitant extrahepatic organ resection, and operative time. Strategies to mitigate blood loss or transfusion include pre-operative (iron, erythropoietin), intra-operative (vascular occlusion, parenchymal transection techniques, hemostatic agents, antifibrinolytics, low central pressure, hemodilution, autologous blood recycling), and post-operative (normothermia, correction of coagulopathy, optimization of nutrition, restrictive transfusion strategy) methods.

CONCLUSION

Blood loss during hepatectomy is common and several risk factors can be identified pre-operatively. Blood loss and RBCT during hepatectomy is associated with post-operative morbidity and mortality. Disease-free recurrence, disease-specific survival, and overall survival may be associated with blood loss and RBCT during hepatectomy. Attention to pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative strategies to reduce blood loss and RBCT is necessary.

Three point transfusion risk score in hepatectomy: an external validation using the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP)

BACKGROUND

Risk of red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) in partial hepatectomy is 17-27%; strategies to reduce transfusions can be targeted in patients at increased risk. A Three Point Transfusion Risk Score (TRS) was previously developed to predict patients' risk of transfusion during and following hepatectomy. Here, it was subject to external validation using the ACS-NSQIP database.

METHODS

TRIPOD guidelines were followed. A validation cohort was created with the ACS-NSQIP dataset. Risk groups for RBCT were created using the TRS: anemia (hematocrit ≤36%), major liver resection (≥4 segments) and primary liver malignancy. Concordance index was used to assess the discrimination. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test for goodness of fit and calibration curves were used to assess calibration.

RESULTS

Of 2854 hepatectomies, 18.9% received RBCT. The TRS stratified patients from low (8.5% risk of RBCT) to very high risk (40.6%) of RBCT. The concordance was 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.70). Hosmer-Lemeshow test and calibration curves supported good predictive performance of the model.

CONCLUSION

The TRS adequately discriminated risk of RBCT in an external sample of patients undergoing hepatectomy. It provides a simple method to identify patients at high transfusion risk. It can be used to tailor patient blood management initiatives and reduce the use of RBCT.

Perioperative fluid management in major hepatic resection: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

Fluid intervention and vasoactive pharmacological support during hepatic resection depend on the preference of the attending clinician, institutional resources, and practice culture. Evidence-based recommendations to guide perioperative fluid management are currently limited. Therefore, we provide a contemporary clinical integrative overview of the fundamental principles underpinning fluid intervention and hemodynamic optimization for adult patients undergoing major hepatic resection.

DATA SOURCES

A literature review was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials using the terms "surgery", "anesthesia", "starch", "hydroxyethyl starch derivatives", "albumin", "gelatin", "liver resection", "hepatic resection", "fluids", "fluid therapy", "crystalloid", "colloid", "saline", "plasma-Lyte", "plasmalyte", "hartmann's", "acetate", and "lactate". Search results for MEDLINE and EMBASE were additionally limited to studies on human populations that included adult age groups and publications in English.

RESULTS

A total of 113 articles were included after appropriate inclusion criteria screening. Perioperative fluid management as it relates to various anesthetic and surgical techniques is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should have a fundamental understanding of the surgical phases of the resection, hemodynamic goals, and anesthesia challenges in attempts to individualize therapy to the patient's underlying pathophysiological condition. Therefore, an ideal approach for perioperative fluid therapy is always individualized. Planning and designing large-scale clinical trials are imperative to define the optimal type and amount of fluid for patients undergoing major hepatic resection. Further clinical trials evaluating different intraoperative goal-directed strategies are also eagerly awaited.