Intraoperative autotransfusion in aortic surgery: comparison of whole blood autotransfusion versus cell separation

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety and availability of transfused donor blood have prompted research into a range of techniques to minimise allogeneic transfusion requirements. Cell salvage (CS) describes the recovery of blood from the surgical field, either during or after surgery, for reinfusion back to the patient.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CS in minimising perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and on other clinical outcomes in adults undergoing elective or non-urgent surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two clinical trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews from 2009 (date of previous search) to 19 January 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs assessing the use of CS compared to no CS in adults (participants aged 18 or over, or using the study's definition of adult) undergoing elective (non-urgent) surgery only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 106 RCTs, incorporating data from 14,528 participants, reported in studies conducted in 24 countries. Results were published between 1978 and 2021. We analysed all data according to a single comparison: CS versus no CS. We separated analyses by type of surgery. The certainty of the evidence varied from very low certainty to high certainty. Reasons for downgrading the certainty included imprecision (small sample sizes below the optimal information size required to detect a difference, and wide confidence intervals), inconsistency (high statistical heterogeneity), and risk of bias (high risk from domains including sequence generation, blinding, and baseline imbalances). Aggregate analysis (all surgeries combined: primary outcome only) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.72; 82 RCTs, 12,520 participants). Cancer: 2 RCTs (79 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for mortality, blood loss, infection, or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Cardiovascular (vascular): 6 RCTs (384 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for most outcomes. No data were reported for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Cardiovascular (no bypass): 6 RCTs (372 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 3 RCTs, 169 participants). Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for volume transfused, blood loss, mortality, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospital length of stay (LOS). There were no analysable data reported for thrombosis, DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), and MACE. Cardiovascular (with bypass): 29 RCTs (2936 participants) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS, and suggests there may be no difference in risk of infection and hospital LOS. Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a reduction in volume transfused because of CS, or if there is any difference for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, wound complication, thrombosis, DVT, PE, MACE, and MI, and probably no difference in risk of stroke. Obstetrics: 1 RCT (1356 participants) High-certainty evidence shows there is no difference between groups for mean volume of allogeneic blood transfused (mean difference (MD) -0.02 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 1 RCT, 1349 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for risk of allogeneic transfusion. There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Orthopaedic (hip only): 17 RCTs (2055 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, or if there is any difference between groups for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), thrombosis, DVT, PE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for MACE and MI. Orthopaedic (knee only): 26 RCTs (2568 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, and whether there is a difference for blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, PJI, DVT, PE, MI, MACE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for mortality and thrombosis. Orthopaedic (spine only): 6 RCTs (404 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; 3 RCTs, 194 participants). Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for volume transfused, blood loss, infection, wound complication, and PE. There were no analysable data reported for mortality, re-operation for bleeding, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MACE, MI, stroke, and hospital LOS. Orthopaedic (mixed): 14 RCTs (4374 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS, or if there is any difference between groups for volume transfused, mortality, blood loss, infection, wound complication, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MI, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for re-operation for bleeding, MACE, and stroke.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In some types of elective surgery, cell salvage may reduce the need for and volume of allogeneic transfusion, alongside evidence of no difference in adverse events, when compared to no cell salvage. Further research is required to establish why other surgeries show no benefit from CS, through further analysis of the current evidence. More large RCTs in under-reported specialities are needed to expand the evidence base for exploring the impact of CS.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified studies by searching CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009), the internet (to August 2009) and bibliographies of published articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage (autotransfusion) or to a control group who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and the risk of bias assessed. Relative risks (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 75 trials were included. Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 38% (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 21% (95% CI 15% to 26%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.57) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.68 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (WMD -0.68; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. The use of cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status potentially biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood, have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified studies by searching CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009), the Internet (to August 2009) and bibliographies of published articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage (autotransfusion), or to a control group, who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted and the risk of bias assessed. Relative risks (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion, and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 75 trials were included. Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 38% (RR=0.62: 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 21% (95% CI 15% to 26%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.57) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.68 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (WMD=-0.68; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. The use of cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status potentially biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood, have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents and the websites of international health technology assessment agencies. The reference lists in identified trials and review articles were also searched, and study authors were contacted to identify additional studies. The searches were updated in January 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel group trials in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage, or to a control group, who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. The main outcomes measures were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion, and the amount of blood transfused. Other outcomes measured were re-operation for bleeding, blood loss, post-operative complications (thrombosis, infection, non-fatal myocardial infarction, renal failure), mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 39% (relative risk [RR] = 0.61: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.71). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 23% (95% CI 16% to 30%). In orthopaedic procedures the RR of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.42 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.54) compared to 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.87) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.67 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (weighted mean difference was -0.64; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.45). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective surgery. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patients' treatment status biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

Impact of an Autotransfusion System during Endoluminal Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Does it Decrease the use of Allogeneic Blood?

Endoluminal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is associated with decreased blood loss and transfusion requirements when compared to open AAA repair. We evaluated the use of an intraoperative autotransfusion system during endoluminal exclusion of AAAs. Fifty endoluminal AAA procedures selected at random were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to their estimated blood loss: Group I, 20 patients (0–500 cc); Group II, 18 patients (501–1,000 cc); Group III, 7 patients (1,001–1,500 cc); and Group IV, 5 patients (1,501–3,400 cc). The average blood loss was 327 cc for Group I, 728 cc for Group II, 1,217 for Group III, and 2,125, for Group IV. The overall blood loss was 834 cc, but 75 per cent was recovered. Hematuria was always present when greater than 1,000 cc of blood was retransfused, but renal function was not affected even with the concomitant administration of radiographic contrast. Only one patient required an autologous blood transfusion. The use of an autotransfusion device is safe, efficacious, and appears to further limit the need for homologous blood transfusion in patients undergoing endoluminal AAA repair.

Preoperative assessment and management to prevent complications during high-risk vascular surgery

OBJECTIVE

Most patients requiring vascular surgical reconstruction are at high risk for major morbidity and mortality, with certain vascular procedures at particularly high risk for complications. Although numerous comorbid conditions are precisely the risk factors that determine outcome, we review particular factors for each surgery that may be optimized to alter outcome and minimize postoperative complications.

DESIGN

Literature review.

RESULTS

Certain aspects of care are common to all vascular surgery procedures, including thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, pararenal and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, mesenteric and renal revascularization, and carotid endarterectomy. Some factors that are important include careful preoperative assessment and optimization of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal function and volume status. In addition, the use of experienced teams during and after the procedure, as well as clear and continuous communication between all surgical team members, may improve outcome. Particular attention to procedural details is also crucial to achieving excellent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients needing vascular surgery often possess management challenges that increase the risk of perioperative complications. Meticulous attention to details during all phases of care, including preoperative optimization as well as intraoperative procedural conduct and communication, helps achieve optimal results and thus minimize the risk of complications.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood, have prompted reconsideration of the use of allogeneic (blood from an unrelated donor) red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, and a range of techniques to minimise transfusion requirements.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of cell salvage in reducing allogeneic blood transfusion and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Articles were identified by: computer searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents (to July 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2002) and websites of international health technology assessment agencies. References in the identified trials and review articles were searched and authors contacted to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel group trials in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to cell salvage, or to a control group, who did not receive the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed using criteria proposed by Schulz et al. (Schulz 1995) and Jadad et al. (Jadad 1996). Main outcomes measured were: the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red cell transfusion, and the amount of blood transfused. Other outcomes measured were: re-operation for bleeding, blood loss, post-operative complications (thrombosis, infection, non-fatal myocardial infarction, renal failure), mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, the use of cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 40% (relative risk [RR] = 0.60: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.70). The absolute reduction in risk (ARR) of receiving an allogeneic RBC transfusion was 23% (95%CI = 16% to 30%). In orthopaedic procedures the relative risk (RR) of exposure to RBC transfusion was 0.42 (95%CI = 0.32 to 0.54) compared to 0.78 (95%CI = 0.68 to 0.88) for cardiac procedures. The use of cell salvage resulted in an average saving of 0.64 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -0.64: 95%CI = -0.86 to -0.46). Cell salvage did not appear to impact adversely on clinical outcomes.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic red cell transfusion in adult elective surgery. However, the methodological quality of trials was poor. As the trials were unblinded and lacked adequate concealment of treatment allocation, transfusion practices may have been influenced by knowledge of the patient's treatment status biasing the results in favour of cell salvage.

Should the cell saver autotransfusion system be routinely used in elective aortic surgery?

The objective of this study is to identify the aortic surgery procedures in which the use of the Cell Saver autotransfusion system is beneficial in terms of the amount of autologous blood recovered and the reduction in blood bank demands. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the system is also presented. Four hundred and thirty-four elective aortic interventions were retrospectively reviewed to examine the use of intraoperative autotransfusion (IAT). Evaluation was made of risk factors, preoperative hematological variables, the volume of IAT-processed reinfused blood, and homologous transfusion requirements over the period of hospitalization. The routine use of the IAT system was cost-effective in the interventions for AAA and TAA. In patients subjected to aortobifemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease, IAT served to alleviate demands on blood bank inventories, although in our center its use led to a slight increase in net cost. The routine use of IAT during unilateral revascularization due to occlusive disease offered no benefits in terms of reduced homologous transfusion requirements or cost-effectiveness.

Perfusion method for thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair using the open distal technique

Challenges related to perfusion support of thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair include maintenance of distal aortic perfusion, rapidity of fluid resuscitation, and avoidance of both hypothermia and excessive hemodilution. Using available technology, we have devised a circuit and protocol that addresses these issues. To accomplish such support a bypass circuit consisting of 3/8 inch tubing connected to a centrifugal pump and low-prime heat exchanger was constructed. The circuit was primed via 1/4 inch spiked connectors attached to a 3-liter bag of normal saline. After initial de-airing, the solution was recirculated through this bag. Patients were anticoagulated with 1 mg/kg of heparin prior to initiation of support. Left atrial-descending aorta bypass was used primarily. A cell salvage device was used for autotransfusion. All blood products were delivered via a rapid infusion device. During partial exsanguination, shed blood was not processed, but directed to the rapid infusor for immediate retransfusion. Any packed cells given were washed prior to transfusion. Citrate dextrose solution was used as an anticoagulant for the cell scavenger. This configuration was used successfully in 50 procedures during an 18-month period. Use of this low-prime, custom circuit reduced both hemodilution and cost. A connection off the cell salvage pump offers fast retransfusion of shed blood during partial exsanguination. Minimal heparinization and citrate anticoagulation appears to reduce coagulopathy.

Development of the membrane autotransfusion system prototype-II: MATS-II

This article is the second of a two-part series describing a membrane autotransfusion system, MATS, utilizing plasmapheresis technology. Based on experiences obtained from the first prototype (MATS-I), optimum blood filtration parameters with refined blood and flux pump synchronization were put into an original CPU-board and loaded on a miniaturized, self-operative, and preclinical prototype (MATS-II). This study was conducted to evaluate the MATS-II using diluted blood of various hematocrit concentrations. The results proved that this device could concentrate 4,000-10,000 ml of various hematocrit concentrations into higher than 40% while automatically controlling the flow speed from 250 to 400 ml/min. Also, no significant damage was generated to the red blood cells (RBC). Moreover, the MATS-II salvaged over 90% of platelets together with the RBC. These results suggest that the MATS-II achieves all clinical requirements of an autotransfusion device; it is a continuous hemoconcentration device with minimum damage to cellular components of the blood.

In vitro evaluation study of the membrane autotransfusion system experimental prototype: MATS-I

Membrane Autotransfusion System (MATS) utilizing plasmapheresis technology has been developed in our laboratory. A specially designed polyethylene hollow fiber membrane was utilized. This study was conducted to evaluate performance of the first experimental prototype, MATS-I. The results of this study showed that the MATS-I could concentrate diluted blood at 10% of the initial hematocrit concentration (HCTi) into over 40% after passing through the system at a transmembrane pressure of 70 mm Hg. Moreover, the MATS-I can continuously treat 10,000 ml of diluted blood at various HCTi levels without deteriorating its performances. Even though the MATS-I met all required performances as an autotransfusion system, several areas of improvement of the system were necessary to meet various clinical needs. The next prototype, MATS-II, can be designed based on experiences obtained from the MATS-I. The MATS is smaller, more atraumatic and continuous, and is a faster system when compared to the currently available centrifugal autotransfusion devices.

A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cell salvage to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators

Concern about risks of allogeneic transfusion has led to an interest in methods for decreasing perioperative transfusion. To determine whether cell salvage reduces patient exposure to allogeneic blood, we performed meta-analyses of randomized trials, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell salvage in cardiac or orthopedic elective surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received at least one perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion. Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analyses. Cell salvage devices that do not wash salvaged blood were marginally effective in cardiac surgery patients when used postoperatively (relative risk [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.92). Devices that wash or do not wash salvaged blood considerably decreased the proportion of orthopedic surgery patients who received allogeneic transfusion (RR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.30-0.51 and RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.26-0.46, respectively). No studies of cell savers that wash salvaged blood during cardiac surgery were included. Cell salvage did not appear to increase the frequency of adverse events. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the risk of patients' exposure to allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively. Postoperative cell salvage in cardiac surgery, with devices that do not wash the salvaged blood, is only marginally effective.

IMPLICATIONS

This meta-analysis of all published randomized trials provides the best current estimate of the effectiveness of cell salvage and is useful in guiding clinical practice. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the proportion of patients requiring allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively, but postoperative cell salvage is only marginally effective in cardiac surgery.

A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cell salvage to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators

Concern about risks of allogeneic transfusion has led to an interest in methods for decreasing perioperative transfusion. To determine whether cell salvage reduces patient exposure to allogeneic blood, we performed meta-analyses of randomized trials, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell salvage in cardiac or orthopedic elective surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received at least one perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion. Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analyses. Cell salvage devices that do not wash salvaged blood were marginally effective in cardiac surgery patients when used postoperatively (relative risk [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.92). Devices that wash or do not wash salvaged blood considerably decreased the proportion of orthopedic surgery patients who received allogeneic transfusion (RR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.30-0.51 and RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.26-0.46, respectively). No studies of cell savers that wash salvaged blood during cardiac surgery were included. Cell salvage did not appear to increase the frequency of adverse events. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the risk of patients' exposure to allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively. Postoperative cell salvage in cardiac surgery, with devices that do not wash the salvaged blood, is only marginally effective.

IMPLICATIONS

This meta-analysis of all published randomized trials provides the best current estimate of the effectiveness of cell salvage and is useful in guiding clinical practice. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the proportion of patients requiring allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively, but postoperative cell salvage is only marginally effective in cardiac surgery.