What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Outcomes of perioperative intravenous iron infusion in femoral fracture surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patient blood management recommends the use of intravenous (IV) iron infusion to reduce inappropriate blood transfusion perioperatively for anaemic surgical patients. However, evidence regarding its use in urgent femoral fracture surgery is limited. This systematic review aims to collate the current evidence regarding the utilisation of IV iron in femoral fracture surgery.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing the outcomes of perioperative IV iron infusion with placebo in adults requiring surgical management for femoral fractures. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) were calculated with the inverse-variance method for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with 1292 patients were included. No statistically significant difference was found in the proportion of patients receiving red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (RR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.75; 1.01, p = 0.058) between groups. Statistically significant difference in postoperative haemoglobin concentration was found between groups measured between day 4-7 of admission (MD = 1.93 g/L, 95%CI: 0.48; 3.39, p = 0.024), but not clinically significant. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in mortality rate, length of hospital stay, infection rate, or return to home rate.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that IV iron infusion alone does not provide any clinically significant benefit in femoral fracture surgery. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to explore its synergistic potential when used in combination with other perioperative optimisation methods, including tranexamic acid, erythropoietin and cell salvage.

Jehovah's Witness Needing Critical Care: A Narrative Review on the Expanding Arsenal

Present day Jehovah's Witness (JW) religion accounts for 8.5 million followers. A tenant feature of the JW faith is religious objection to transfusions of blood and blood products. Interpatient variability, as it pertains to blood and blood products may occur; hence, a confidential interview will determine which products individual may consent to (Marsh and Bevan, 2002). This belief and practice place great restrictions on treating medical professionals in scenarios of life-threatening anaemia and active haemorrhage. The review to follow explores the physiological and pathophysiological consequences of severe anaemia. Non-blood transfusion practices are explored, many of which are potentially lifesaving. Particular attention is drawn to the evolving science involving artificial oxygen carriers and their use in emergency situations. A greater safety profile ensures its future use amongst religious objectors to be greatly beneficial. Intravenous iron supplementation has enjoyed a lively debate within the critical care community. A review of recent systematic and meta-analysis supports its use in the ICU; however, more investigation is needed into the complementary use of hepcidin.

Ferric derisomaltose and tranexamic acid, combined or alone, for reducing blood transfusion in patients with hip fracture (the HiFIT trial): a multicentre, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anaemia and blood transfusion are associated with poor outcomes after hip fracture. We evaluated the efficacy of intravenous iron and tranexamic acid in reducing blood transfusions after hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial, we recruited adults hospitalised for hip fractures in 12 medical centres in France who had preoperative haemoglobin concentrations between 9·5 and 13·0 g/dL. We randomly allocated participants (1:1:1:1), via a secure web-based service, to ferric derisomaltose (20 mg/kg intravenously) and tranexamic acid (1 g bolus followed by 1 g over 8 h intravenously at inclusion and 3 g topically during surgery), iron plus placebo (normal saline), tranexamic acid plus placebo, or double placebo. Unmasked nurses administered study drugs; participants and other clinical and research staff remained masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients transfused during hospitalisation (or by day 30). The primary analysis included all randomised patients. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02972294) and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Of 413 patients (51-104 years old, median [IQR] 86 [78-91], 312 [76%] women, 101 [24%] men), 104 received iron plus tranexamic acid, 103 iron plus placebo, 103 tranexamic acid plus placebo, and 103 double placebo between March 31, 2017 and June 18, 2021 (study stopped early for efficacy after the planned interim analysis done on the first 390 patients included on May 25, 2021). Data for the primary outcome were available for all participants. Among patients on double placebo, 31 (30%) were transfused versus 16 (15%) on both drugs (relative risk 0·51 [98·3% CI 0·27-0·97]; p=0·012). 27 (26%) participants on iron (0·81 [0·50-1·29]; p=0·28) and 28 (27%) on tranexamic acid (0·85 [0·54-1·33]; p=0·39) were transfused. 487 adverse events were reported with similar event rates among the groups; among prespecified safety endpoints, severe postoperative anaemia (haemoglobin <8 g/dL) was more frequent in the double placebo group. Main common adverse event were sepsis, pneumonia, and urinary infection, with similar rates among all groups.

INTERPRETATION

In patients hospitalised for hip fracture surgery with a haemoglobin concentration 9·5-13·0 g/dL, preoperative infusion of ferric derisomaltose plus tranexamic acid reduced the risk of blood transfusion by 50%. Our results suggest that combining treatments from two different pillars improves patient blood-management programmes. Either treatment alone did not reduce transfusion rates, but we might not have had the power to detect it.

FUNDING

French Ministry of Health, HiFIT trial.

Interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Following hip fracture, people sustain an acute blood loss caused by the injury and subsequent surgery. Because the majority of hip fractures occur in older adults, blood loss may be compounded by pre-existing anaemia. Allogenic blood transfusions (ABT) may be given before, during, and after surgery to correct chronic anaemia or acute blood loss. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit-risk ratio for ABT. This is a potentially scarce resource, with availability of blood products sometimes uncertain. Other strategies from Patient Blood Management may prevent or minimise blood loss and avoid administration of ABT.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, administered perioperatively, on reducing blood loss, anaemia, and the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

In January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions given to prevent or minimise blood loss, treat the effects of anaemia, and reduce the need for ABT, in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery. We searched for pharmacological interventions (fibrinogen, factor VIIa and factor XIII, desmopressin, antifibrinolytics, fibrin and non-fibrin sealants and glue, agents to reverse the effects of anticoagulants, erythropoiesis agents, iron, vitamin B12, and folate replacement therapy) and non-pharmacological interventions (surgical approaches to reduce or manage blood loss, intraoperative cell salvage and autologous blood transfusion, temperature management, and oxygen therapy). We used Cochrane methodology, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2. We assessed the degree of overlap of RCTs between reviews. Because overlap was very high, we used a hierarchical approach to select reviews from which to report data; we compared the findings of selected reviews with findings from the other reviews. Outcomes were: number of people requiring ABT, volume of transfused blood (measured as units of packed red blood cells (PRC)), postoperative delirium, adverse events, activities of daily living (ADL), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 26 systematic reviews including 36 RCTs (3923 participants), which only evaluated tranexamic acid and iron. We found no reviews of other pharmacological interventions or any non-pharmacological interventions. Tranexamic acid (17 reviews, 29 eligible RCTs) We selected reviews with the most recent search date, and which included data for the most outcomes. The methodological quality of these reviews was low. However, the findings were largely consistent across reviews. One review included 24 RCTs, with participants who had internal fixation or arthroplasty for different types of hip fracture. Tranexamic acid was given intravenously or topically during the perioperative period. In this review, based on a control group risk of 451 people per 1000, 194 fewer people per 1000 probably require ABT after receiving tranexamic acid (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.68; 21 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty for possible publication bias. Review authors found that there was probably little or no difference in the risks of adverse events, reported as deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.81; 22 studies), pulmonary embolism (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.86; 9 studies), myocardial infarction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.33; 8 studies), cerebrovascular accident (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.70; 8 studies), or death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.46; 10 studies). We judged evidence from these outcomes to be moderate certainty, downgraded for imprecision. Another review, with a similarly broad inclusion criteria, included 10 studies, and found that tranexamic acid probably reduces the volume of transfused PRC (0.53 fewer units, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.80; 7 studies, 813 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty because of unexplained high levels of statistical heterogeneity. No reviews reported outcomes of postoperative delirium, ADL, or HRQoL. Iron (9 reviews, 7 eligible RCTs) Whilst all reviews included studies in hip fracture populations, most also included other surgical populations. The most current, direct evidence was reported in two RCTs, with 403 participants with hip fracture; iron was given intravenously, starting preoperatively. This review did not include evidence for iron with erythropoietin. The methodological quality of this review was low. In this review, there was low-certainty evidence from two studies (403 participants) that there may be little or no difference according to whether intravenous iron was given in: the number of people who required ABT (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11), the volume of transfused blood (MD -0.07 units of PRC, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.17), infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13). There may be little or no difference in delirium (25 events in the iron group compared to 26 events in control group; 1 study, 303 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very unsure whether there was any difference in HRQoL, since it was reported without an effect estimate. The findings were largely consistent across reviews. We downgraded the evidence for imprecision, because studies included few participants, and the wide CIs indicated possible benefit and harm. No reviews reported outcomes of cognitive dysfunction, ADL, or HRQoL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tranexamic acid probably reduces the need for ABT in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, and there is probably little or no difference in adverse events. For iron, there may be little or no difference in overall clinical effects, but this finding is limited by evidence from only a few small studies. Reviews of these treatments did not adequately include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), and evidence for their effectiveness remains incomplete. We were unable to effectively explore the impact of timing and route of administration between reviews. A lack of systematic reviews for other types of pharmacological or any non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the need for ABT indicates a need for further evidence syntheses to explore this. Methodologically sound evidence syntheses should include PROMS within four months of surgery.

Recommendations From the International Consensus Conference on Anemia Management in Surgical Patients (ICCAMS)

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anemia has been associated with increased risk of red blood cell transfusion and increased morbidity and mortality after surgery. The optimal approach to the diagnosis and management of perioperative anemia is not fully established.

OBJECTIVE

To develop consensus recommendations for anemia management in surgical patients.

METHODS

An international expert panel reviewed the current evidence and developed recommendations using modified RAND Delphi methodology.

RESULTS

The panel recommends that all patients except those undergoing minor procedures be screened for anemia before surgery. Appropriate therapy for anemia should be guided by an accurate diagnosis of the etiology. The need to proceed with surgery in some patients with anemia is expected to persist. However, early identification and effective treatment of anemia has the potential to reduce the risks associated with surgery and improve clinical outcomes. As with preoperative anemia, postoperative anemia should be treated in the perioperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification and effective treatment of anemia has the potential to improve clinical outcomes in surgical patients.

The efficacy of intravenous iron for treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anemia is common in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with various etiologies, among which iron deficiency is the leading cause. However, the benefit of intravenous (IV) iron for the treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery is uncertain. This updated meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IV iron in adult cardiac surgery patients with preoperative anemia.

METHODS

This review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Trial sequential analysis was performed on the primary outcome (transfusion rate) to confirm whether firm evidence was reached.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (936 patients) and 5 observational studies (1350 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The IV iron group and the control group were comparable in terms of transfusion rate [55.1% vs 60.9%, risk ratio (RR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.03, P = 0.13, low quality]. There were no significant differences in units transfused per patient, ICU stay and hospital length of stay between the two groups. And pooled data showed a benefit of IV iron compared to the control group on mortality (2.76% vs 3.75%, RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95, P = 0.03, moderate quality) and no mortality reduction existed when including only RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggested that IV iron treatment for patients with anemia before cardiac surgery did not reduce the transfusion requirement (low quality), but it was associated with decreased mortality (moderate quality). More large-scale, high-quality randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm or refute our findings. PROSPERO registry reference: CRD42022331875.

Large Animal Models for Simulating Physiology of Transfusion of Red Cell Concentrates-A Scoping Review of The Literature

Background and Objectives: Transfusion of red cell concentrates is a key component of medical therapy. To investigate the complex transfusion-associated biochemical and physiological processes as well as potential risks for human recipients, animal models are of particular importance. This scoping review summarizes existing large animal transfusion models for their ability to model the physiology associated with the storage of erythrocyte concentrates. Materials and Methods: The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched for original studies providing information on the intravenous application of erythrocyte concentrates in porcine, ovine, and canine animal models. Results: A total of 36 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of porcine studies evaluated hemorrhagic shock conditions. Pig models showed high physiological similarities with regard to red cell physiology during early storage. Ovine and canine studies were found to model typical aspects of human red cell storage at 42 days. Only four studies provided data on 24 h in vivo survival of red cells. Conclusions: While ovine and canine models can mimic typical human erythrocyte storage for up to 42 days, porcine models stand out for reliably simulating double-hit pathologies such as hemorrhagic shock. Large animal models remain an important area of translational research since they have an impact on testing new pharmacological or biophysical interventions to attenuate storage-related adverse effects and allow, in a controlled environment, to study background and interventions in dynamic and severe disease conditions.

Changes in perioperative red cell transfusion practice over time in patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal and liver cancer: a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary centre

OBJECTIVES

Optimum transfusion trigger for adults undergoing cancer surgery is uncertain. Published guidelines recommend restrictive transfusion strategies in hospitalised adults. We aimed to measure the red cell transfusion rate and haemoglobin trigger in patients undergoing cancer surgery and how closely practice reflected published guidelines.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single tertiary centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients undergoing surgery for upper gastrointestinal or liver malignancy.

EXPOSURE

Postguideline change (2015-2017) versus preguideline change (2011-2012).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: transfusion rate, secondary: transfusion trigger. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors and adjust for confounders affecting our outcome measures.

RESULTS

1578 surgical records were identified for 1520 patients. 946/1530 (62%) patients had preoperative anaemia. The transfusion rate decreased from 23% in 2011-2012 to 14% in 2015-2017. This change remained significant after adjusting for other variables associated with transfusion rates. Mean pretransfusion haemoglobin in those who were transfused was 78±13 g/L in 2011-2012 and 80±15 g/L in 2015-2017. This change in haemoglobin transfusion triggers was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Transfusion rate has decreased over the study period in patients undergoing surgery for malignancy and is consistent with a restrictive transfusion strategy.

Non-erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, non-iron therapies for the management of anaemia: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative anaemia is associated with poor postoperative outcomes and is the strongest predictor of allogenic blood transfusion, which contributes further to patient morbidity. Emphasis has been placed on correcting anaemia prior to surgery to mitigate these outcomes. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the benefit of currently recommended interventions. With greater understanding of iron haemostasis and erythropoiesis, novel therapies have been identified. These are at varying stages of development with some demonstrating promising results in patients with chronic kidney disease. It is not known how these agents have been studied outside this population, particularly in the perioperative context. To address this, we will conduct a scoping review of the published literature to chart the evidence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews framework. The electronic database search will include Scopus, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Excerpta Medica database (Ovid), with no language restrictions, and will include all publications since 1 January 2010. This review will have three objectives: (1) to describe the mechanisms of action for novel agents, (2) to describe the level of evidence and stage of development of novel agents in a perioperative setting, and (3) to determine the potential agents suitable for prospective controlled trials in a preoperative or postoperative patient cohort and aiming to improve patient-centred outcomes. The review process will involve two reviewers with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. Data will be extracted and organised with subsequent analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review does not require research ethics approval. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and inform the development of future prospective trials based on established evidence from potential therapeutic agents.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework registry (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/SM3UH, https://osf.io/sm3uh/?view_only=39876ccf7a4348dfbd566535b957a7db).Cite Now.

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.

Intravenous iron: do we adequately understand the short- and long-term risks in clinical practice?

Intravenous (IV) iron as a therapeutic agent is often administered but not always fully understood. The benefits of IV iron are well proven in many fields, particularly in nephrology. IV iron is beneficial not only for true iron deficiency but also for iron-restricted anaemia (functional iron deficiency). Yet, the literature on intravenous iron has many inconsistencies regarding its adverse effects. Over the last several years, newer forms of iron have been developed, leading to the more regular use of iron and in larger doses. This review will summarize some of the older and newer literature regarding the differences among iron products, including the mechanisms and frequency of their adverse events (AEs). The pathway and frequency of an underrecognized adverse event (hypophosphataemia) will be discussed. Recent insights on infection risk and iron handling by macrophages are examined. Potential but presently unproven risks of iron overload due to IV iron are discussed. The impact of these on the risk:benefit ratio and dosing of intravenous iron are considered in different clinical settings, including pregnancy and cancer. IV iron is an essential component of the therapy of anaemia and understanding these issues will enable more informed treatment decisions and knowledgeable use of these drugs.

Association of iron supplementation with risk of transfusion, hospital length of stay, and mortality in geriatric patients undergoing hip fracture surgeries: a meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of iron supplementation for perioperative anemia in geriatric patients with hip fracture.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for studies published using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Databases that compared iron supplementation with placebo in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. The outcomes were blood transfusion rate and volume, length of stay, infection and mortality (last follow-up). Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were performed in cases of substantial heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis (6 studies: 1201 patients) indicated that iron supplements were not associated with reducing blood transfusion rate (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60-1.41; P = 0.69), but high heterogeneity (I² = 61%) was detected and a significant association was found in sensitivity analysis of four studies (n = 637; OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.95; P = 0.02). A significant reduction was detected in transfusion volume (two studies: n = 234; MD - 0.45 units/patient, 95% CI - 0.74 to - 0.16; P = 0.002), hospital stay (five studies: n = 998; MD - 1.42, 95% CI - 2.18 to - 0.67; P = 0.0002) and caused no increased risk of mortality (five studies: n = 937; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.36; P = 0.76) and infection (four studies: n = 701; OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.90; P = 0.01). Sub-group analyses of four studies showed that the preoperative intravenous use of iron at 200-300 mg (two studies) may be the beneficial option for hip fractures patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Iron supplementation, especially preoperative intravenous use of 200-300 mg iron, is safe and associated with reducing transfusion requirement and hospital stay. Unfortunately, data were too limited to draw a definite conclusion. Further evaluation is required before recommending iron supplementation for older patients with hip fracture surgeries.

Preoperative Anemia Treatment With Intravenous Iron in Patients Undergoing Major Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Based upon the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, iron deficiency anemia is the cause of at least 20% of cases of anemia in adults over the age of 65. This is especially relevant in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery as substantial perioperative blood loss is possible, leading to a high rate of allogeneic blood transfusion in total hip replacements, total knee replacements, and hip fracture repairs.

Significance

The results of this systematic review may be of interest to clinicians and hospital administrators evaluating the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of intravenous (IV) iron administration prior to major orthopedic surgery.

Materials and Methods

The original studies considered for this review included patients who were over 18 years of age, undergoing major orthopedic surgery, and who received an IV iron treatment in the preoperative setting. A total of 1083 articles were identified and reviewed. After removing duplicates, 1031 publications were screened, and 105 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 98 were excluded and 7 articles remained which met the criteria for this review. The primary outcome examined in the included studies was the allogeneic blood transfusion rate. The secondary areas of interest were changes in serum hemoglobin, morbidity and mortality, length of stay, and cost effectiveness.

Results

This systematic review found little evidence that IV iron therapy is effective at reducing transfusion in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery.

Conclusions

We do not recommend preoperative IV iron therapy for all patients scheduled for major orthopedic surgery.

The association of pre-operative anaemia with morbidity and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Pre-operative anaemia is associated with poor outcomes after elective surgery but its relationship with outcomes after emergency surgery is unclear. We analysed National Emergency Laparotomy Audit data from 1 December 2013 to 30 November 2017, excluding laparotomy for haemorrhage. Anaemia was classified as 'mild' 129-110 g.l-1; 'moderate' 109-80 g.l-1; or 'severe' ≤ 79 g.l-1. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, return to theatre and postoperative hospital stay. The primary outcome was available for 86,763 patients, of whom 45,306 (52%) were anaemic. There were 12,667 (15%) deaths at 90 postoperative days and 9246 (11%) deaths at 30 postoperative days. Anaemia was associated with increased 90-day and 30-day mortality, odds ratio (95%CI): mild, 1.15 (1.09-1.21); moderate, 1.44 (1.36-1.52); and severe, 1.42 (1.24-1.63), p < 0.001 for all; mild, 1.07 (1.00-1.12), p = 0.030; moderate, 1.30 (1.21-1.38), p < 0.001; and severe, 1.22 (1.05-1.43), p = 0.010, respectively. All categories of anaemia were associated with prolonged hospital stay, adjusted coefficient (95%CI): mild, 1.31 (1.01-1.62); moderate, 3.41 (3.04-3.77); severe, 2.80 (1.83-3.77), p < 0.001 for all. Moderate and severe anaemia were associated with increased risk of return to the operating theatre, odds ratio (95%CI): moderate 1.13 (1.06-1.21), p < 0.001; and severe 1.23 (1.06-1.43), p = 0.006. Pre-operative anaemia is common in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and is associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity.

Iron Administration, Infection, and Anemia Management in CKD: Untangling the Effects of Intravenous Iron Therapy on Immunity and Infection Risk

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk for infection, attributable to immune dysfunction, increased exposure to infectious agents, loss of cutaneous barriers, comorbid conditions, and treatment-related factors (eg, hemodialysis and immunosuppressant therapy). Because iron plays a vital role in pathogen reproduction and host immunity, it is biologically plausible that intravenous iron therapy and/or iron deficiency influence infection risk in CKD. Available data from preclinical experiments, observational studies, and randomized controlled trials are summarized to explore the interplay between intravenous iron and infection risk among patients with CKD, particularly those receiving maintenance hemodialysis. The current evidence base, including data from a recent randomized controlled trial, suggests that proactive judicious use of intravenous iron (in a manner that minimizes the accumulation of non-transferrin-bound iron) beneficially replaces iron stores while avoiding a clinically relevant effect on infection risk. In the absence of an urgent clinical need, intravenous iron therapy should be avoided in patients with active infection. Although serum ferritin concentration and transferrin saturation can help guide clinical decision making about intravenous iron therapy, definition of an optimal iron status and its precise determination in individual patients remain clinically challenging in CKD and warrant additional study.

Is there an indication to utilize intravenous iron in acute trauma patients? Why, how, and when

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Traumatic injury has been described as a growing pandemic which has significant implications for global health. In the trauma setting, anemia is a common occurrence and is frequently inadequately addressed. It is associated with significant morbidity and incurs great cost - both to the patient and to the health system. The cause is multifactorial, and the pathophysiology is incompletely understood. Appropriate care of the trauma patient is a multidisciplinary responsibility and a focused approach to anemia is vital. The recommendation for restrictive transfusion strategies and the potential benefit of intravenous iron (IVI) in the perioperative setting, make the intervention an attractive proposition in the anemic trauma patient.

RECENT FINDINGS

In an era where the importance of patient blood management is recognized, there is significant attention being given to both the implications and the appropriate management of anemia, in various settings. Advances have been made in the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the anemia associated with traumatic injury and the efficacy of current interventions is being explored. This increased understanding of the pathophysiology behind the condition has also facilitated the postulation of potential therapeutic targets for the future.

SUMMARY

Suboptimally managed anemia impacts on clinical outcome and contributes to the burden of costs associated with trauma. The cause of the anemia associated with trauma is multifactorial and should be addressed at several levels. The role of IVI in this setting is yet to be clearly defined.