The transfusion audit as an educational tool

Appropriateness of perioperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing cancer surgery: A prospective single-centre study

Background:

Allogenic blood transfusion is associated with several potential complications, especially in patients with cancer. The objective of this prospective single-centre study was to identify the rates of perioperative blood transfusion and overtransfusion in a tertiary-level cancer hospital.

Methods:

Between March and May 2008, we studied all adult patients undergoing elective major cancer surgery under anaesthesia and recorded intra- and immediate post-operative (within 24 h) blood transfusions and post-operative investigations. Overtransfusion was defined as post-transfusion haemoglobin (Hb) exceeding 10 g/dL.

Results:

One hundred and eighty-six of 1175 (16%) patients received perioperative blood transfusion. The main trigger for intraoperative transfusion was blood loss exceeding the patient's maximum allowable blood loss (92, 49%). Ninety-five (51%) transfused patients had post-transfusion Hb more than 10 g/dL. The rate of overtransfusion was not higher in patients who received single-unit transfusions.

Conclusion:

The perioperative transfusion rate in patients undergoing cancer surgery was 16%. More than half of these patients were overtransfused. Following this audit, point-of-care facilities for intraoperative haemoglobin measurement have been introduced.

Blood use in elective surgery: the Austrian benchmark study

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking transfusion activity may help to eliminate inappropriate use of blood products. The goal of this study was to measure and to compare the current transfusion practice and to identify predictors of transfusion in public hospitals to develop strategies to optimize transfusion practices.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational study in 18 randomly selected public hospitals from April 2004 to February 2005. Primary outcome measures were the amount of intra- and postoperative blood components transfused and intercenter variability of transfusion rate. Secondary outcome measures were prevalence of preoperative anemia, calculated perioperative blood loss, and lowest measured perioperative hemoglobin (Hb) level.

RESULTS

Adult patients undergoing primary unilateral total hip replacement (THR, n = 1401), primary unilateral knee replacement (TKR, n = 1296), hemicolectomy (HECOC, n = 148), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (n = 777) were enrolled. Due to the small number, data of HECOC patients were not fully analyzed. In the remaining procedures, there was a large intercenter variability in the percentage of patients who received transfusions: THR 16 to 85 percent, TKR 12 to 87 percent, and CABG 37 to 63 percent. In the patients who received transfusions, the number of red blood cells (RBC) units transfused varied significantly. There was also a considerable intercenter variability in RBC loss. The prevalence of preoperative anemia was 19 percent and identical in both sexes. The incidence of preoperative anemia was three times higher in patients who received transfusions compared to those who did not.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a high intercenter variability in RBC transfusions and RBC loss in standard surgical procedures. Whereas the variability in blood loss remains largely unexplained, the main predictors for allogeneic RBC transfusions are preoperative and nadir Hb and surgical RBC loss.

Intervention to promote appropriate blood use in India

The decision to transfuse should be guided by information on the risks and benefits of transfusion. Safer alternatives should be considered. Properly screened blood or components from a reputable source should be used. In this study, a simple, self-educating transfusion request form was developed, and its effects on transfusion practice were assessed, using a cluster-randomized trial. Transfusions at six study hospitals and six control hospitals at four locations in India (Delhi, Bangalore, Nasik and Imphal) were monitored over a 4-month pre-intervention period and a 5-month post-intervention period. During the trial, 56 171 units were transfused to in-patients at the participating hospitals. Among the six intervention hospitals, there was some evidence of a nonsignificant post-intervention reduction in all the three main outcome measures: number of transfusion requests per admission (P = 0.09), number of units transfused per admission (P = 0.11) and number of crossmatches per admission (P = 0.06). No such changes were seen at control sites over the same period. Simple interventions to promote good clinical practice can have an effect, but may be better placed within longer term, broad-based strategies that are able to consider some of the background factors. Lack of clinical training, the hospital environment and fragmented blood bank services influence the way blood is used in India. It is thought that the intervention was ultimately unsuccessful because these factors remained as detrimental influences. A focus on education, policy and infrastructure in line with the new National Blood Policy will be important in coming years.

Reliability of bedside ABO testing before transfusion

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of bedside transfusion compatibility tests have shown high rates of erroneous transfusion decision, due to defective techniques and poor user performance. An experimental study was conducted to evaluate the error rate obtained with a new ready-to-use device (Vu-Test, Medigis), in comparison with the most popular bedside card used in France (Safety-Test ABO, Diagast Laboratories).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A stratified random sample of nurses performed, in the clinical departments where they worked, cross-matches on 12 randomly and blindly selected paired donor-recipient blood samples with Safety-Test ABO and Vu-Test. The nurses detected agglutination, interpreted compatibility, decided whether to transfuse, and gave their opinion of the two devices. Three independent experts reviewed photographs of each test result.

RESULTS

Thirty-five trained nurses and 10 student nurses carried out 268 tests with each device. One-hundred ninety tests (70.9%) performed with Safety-Test ABO and 177 tests (66.0%) performed with Vu-Test were entirely error-free (p=0.23). The risk of erroneous detection of agglutination was not different between the devices (p=0.69), but was significantly lower when the nurse had experience in transfusion (p < 0.001). According to the experts, Vu-Test was significantly better than Safety-Test ABO.

CONCLUSION

Although the experts considered Vu-Test to be better than Safety-Test ABO, error rates were high with both devices.