Autologous versus allogeneic blood transfusion: A comparative study of the peri-operative outcomes in a tertiary care hospital in South India amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

Autologous blood transfusion is known to have advantages over allogeneic transfusion. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified the already existing shortage of allogeneic blood supply. We carried out a study during this period with the aim to elicit the effects of autologous blood collection and transfusion, to compare the peri-operative outcomes of autologous and allogeneic transfusion practices and also to assess the influence of the autologous transfusion programme in the Blood Centre inventory. It was prospective observational comparative study among neurosurgical and vascular surgical patients in a tertiary care centre in South India. 141 patients were allocated into Group I (n = 71) who received autologous transfusion and those who received conventional allogeneic transfusion were clustered as Group II (n = 72) for analysis. We employed Acute Normovolemic Hemodilution (ANH), Pre-deposit Autologous Donation (PAD) and Intra-operative Cell Salvage (ICS) as various modalities for autologous blood collection. In our study, 43 (60.6%) from Group I received exclusive autologous blood transfusion, whereas 28 (39.4%) required additional allogeneic transfusion. No significant difference in hemoglobin, hematocrit, platelet count and INR were observed between the groups post transfusion. Significant difference was observed in the thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) patients with respect to duration of ICU stay (2.7 ± 1.1 days in Group I and 6.2 ± 0.8 days in Group II; p = 0.002) and re-exploration due to bleeding (16.7% in Group I and 40% in Group II; p = 0.048). Autologous blood transfusion is safe and effective. It can be employed as routine practice and also during any acute shortage or pandemic.

Clotting functional stability of withdrawing blood in storage for acute normovolemic hemodilution: a pilot study

Purpose

This study was conducted to time-course changes of clotting function of withdrawing blood for acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH).

Methods

Twelve enrolled patients who underwent ANH from August, 2018 to January, 2019. Blood was withdrawn into blood collection pack and shaken at 60–80 rpm for 24 h in room temperature. Clot formation was evaluated using rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM™) just after blood withdrawal (control) and 4, 8, 12 and 24 h after blood withdrawal. We compared with the control value and each value of extrinsically-activated test with tissue factor (EXTEM), intrinsically-activated test using ellagic acid (INTEM) and fibrin-based extrinsically activated test with tissue factor (FIBTEM).

Results

Maximum clot firmness (MCF) of FIBTEM did not change significantly. MCF of EXTEM was significantly decreased time-dependent manner but all MCF of EXTEM were within a normal range. Maximum percent change in MCF of EXTEM was 12.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 9.0–15.8%]. The difference in the maximum clot elasticity (MCE) between EXTEM and FIBTEM (MCE_EXTEM−MCE_FIBTEM) was significantly decrease from 8 h after blood withdrawal. Maximum percent change in MCE_EXTEM−MCE_FIBTEM was 30.2% (95% CI:17.6–42.9%) at 24 h after blood withdrawal.

Conclusion

Even though the MCE significantly decreased in a time-dependent manner, MCF of FIBTEM and EXTEM was normal up to 24 h storage. The blood of ANH can use for the purpose of hemostasis at least 8 h stored at room temperature after blood withdrawal. Future studies are needed to elucidate the clinical impact on the patient after delayed transfusion of ANH blood with regard to patient’s hemostasis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00540-020-02856-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Methods to decrease blood loss during liver resection: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a major surgery with significant mortality and morbidity. Specialists have tested various methods in attempts to limit blood loss, transfusion requirements, and morbidity during elective liver resection. These methods include different approaches (anterior versus conventional approach), use of autologous blood donation, cardiopulmonary interventions such as hypoventilation, low central venous pressure, different methods of parenchymal transection, different methods of management of the raw surface of the liver, different methods of vascular occlusion, and different pharmacological interventions. A surgeon typically uses only one of the methods from each of these seven categories. The optimal method to decrease blood loss and transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different interventions for decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements during elective liver resection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded to September 2015 to identify randomised clinical trials. We also searched trial registers and handsearched the references lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of decreasing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements in people undergoing liver resection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane domains. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS 1.4, following the guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance documents. We calculated the odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for the binary outcomes, mean differences (MD) with 95% CrI for continuous outcomes, and rate ratios with 95% CrI for count outcomes, using a fixed-effect model or random-effects model according to model-fit. We assessed the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 67 randomised clinical trials involving a total of 6197 participants. All the trials were at high risk of bias. A total of 5771 participants from 64 trials provided data for one or more outcomes included in this review. There was no evidence of differences in most of the comparisons, and where there was, these differences were in single trials, mostly of small sample size. We summarise only the evidence that was available in more than one trial below. Of the primary outcomes, the only one with evidence of a difference from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison was in the number of adverse events (complications), which was higher with radiofrequency dissecting sealer than with the clamp-crush method (rate ratio 1.85, 95% CrI 1.07 to 3.26; 250 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, the only differences we found from more than one trial under the pair-wise comparison were the following: blood transfusion (proportion) was higher in the low central venous pressure group than in the acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure group (OR 3.19, 95% CrI 1.56 to 6.95; 208 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower in the fibrin sealant group than in the control (MD -0.53 units, 95% CrI -1.00 to -0.07; 122 participants; 2; very low-quality evidence); blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher in the oxidised cellulose group than in the fibrin sealant group (MD 0.53 units, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.71; 80 participants; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence); blood loss (MD -0.34 L, 95% CrI -0.46 to -0.22; 237 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence), total hospital stay (MD -2.42 days, 95% CrI -3.91 to -0.94; 197 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and operating time (MD -15.32 minutes, 95% CrI -29.03 to -1.69; 192 participants; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence) were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. For the other comparisons, the evidence for difference was either based on single small trials or there was no evidence of differences. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life or time needed to return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paucity of data meant that we could not assess transitivity assumptions and inconsistency for most analyses. When direct and indirect comparisons were available, network meta-analysis provided additional effect estimates for comparisons where there were no direct comparisons. However, the paucity of data decreases the confidence in the results of the network meta-analysis. Low-quality evidence suggests that liver resection using a radiofrequency dissecting sealer may be associated with more adverse events than with the clamp-crush method. Low-quality evidence also suggests that the proportion of people requiring a blood transfusion is higher with low central venous pressure than with acute normovolemic haemodilution plus low central venous pressure; very low-quality evidence suggests that blood transfusion quantity (red blood cells) was lower with fibrin sealant than control; blood transfusion quantity (fresh frozen plasma) was higher with oxidised cellulose than with fibrin sealant; and blood loss, total hospital stay, and operating time were lower with low central venous pressure than with control. There is no evidence to suggest that using special equipment for liver resection is of any benefit in decreasing the mortality, morbidity, or blood transfusion requirements (very low-quality evidence). Radiofrequency dissecting sealer should not be used outside the clinical trial setting since there is low-quality evidence for increased harm without any evidence of benefits. In addition, it should be noted that the sample size was small and the credible intervals were wide, and we cannot rule out considerable benefit or harm with a specific method of liver resection.

A review of the application of autologous blood transfusion

Autologous blood transfusion (ABT) has been gradually attracting more attention due to the increasingly prominent problem of blood transfusion safety and blood shortage in recent years. With the rapid development of blood conservation techniques, blood component separation technology, blood transfusion medicine and a constant increase in clinical needs, ABT technology has been expanded and innovated to a large degree. In this study, the development of preoperative autologous blood donation (PABD), acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH), intraoperative and postoperative autotransfusion, and other new technologies and theories are reviewed and existing questions are analyzed. Challenges and applications are also discussed in order to provide reference for peers.

Anaesthetic and pharmacological techniques to decrease blood loss in liver surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that perioperative blood loss and blood transfusions are associated with poorer short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature for non-surgical measures to decrease intraoperative blood loss during liver surgery.

METHODS

The literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases. The primary outcome measures were perioperative blood loss and transfusion requirements. A secondary outcome measure was development of ischaemia-reperfusion injury.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and included 1573 patients. All were randomized controlled studies. In eight studies (n = 894), pharmacological methods, and in another nine studies (n = 679), anaesthetic methods to decrease blood loss were investigated. Anti-fibrinolytic drugs, acute normovolaemic haemodilution, autologous blood donation and use of inhalational anaesthetic agent may affect blood loss and post-operative hepatic function.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential for use of non-surgical techniques to decrease perioperative bleeding. However, on the basis of this review alone, due to heterogeneity of randomized trials conducted, no particular strategy can be recommended. Future studies should be conducted looking at pathways to decrease bleeding in liver surgery.