Search

Objectives: Studies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20-59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy., Methods: Patients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin <7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin <10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes., Results: Three hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p < 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p < 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p < 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20-59%) group (p > 0.05)., Conclusions: A restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing., (© Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Our objective was to compare outcomes of a restrictive to a liberal red cell transfusion strategy in 20% or more total body surface area (TBSA) burn patients. We hypothesized that the restrictive group would have less blood stream infection (BSI), organ dysfunction, and mortality., Background: Patients with major burns have major (>1 blood volume) transfusion requirements. Studies suggest that a restrictive blood transfusion strategy is equivalent to a liberal strategy. However, major burn injury is precluded from these studies. The optimal transfusion strategy in major burn injury is thus needed but remains unknown., Methods: This prospective randomized multicenter trial block randomized patients to a restrictive (hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL) or liberal (hemoglobin 10-11 g/dL) transfusion strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes., Results: Eighteen burn centers enrolled 345 patients with 20% or more TBSA burn similar in age, TBSA burn, and inhalation injury. A total of 7054 units blood were transfused. The restrictive group received fewer blood transfusions: mean 20.3 ± 32.7 units, median = 8 (interquartile range: 3, 24) versus mean 31.8 ± 44.3 units, median = 16 (interquartile range: 7, 40) in the liberal group (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum). BSI incidence, organ dysfunction, ventilator days, and time to wound healing (P > 0.05) were similar. In addition, there was no 30-day mortality difference: 9.5% restrictive versus 8.5% liberal (P = 0.892, χ test)., Conclusions: A restrictive transfusion strategy halved blood product utilization. Although the restrictive strategy did not decrease BSI, mortality, or organ dysfunction in major burn injury, these outcomes were no worse than the liberal strategy (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01079247).

The purpose of this study was to analyze blood utilization by 92,815 transfused patients treated in 300 United States hospitals during 1974. In order to achieve this end, transfused patients were first divided into 349 diagnosis groups. Blood transfusion data for the highest ranking 50 groups in terms of total units administered to patients in the group are presented and discussed, as well as the blood needs of patients in 19 major disease categories such as malignant neoplasm. Blood transfusion is then correlated with the month of the year by presenting the mean number and the total number of units transfused per month for the country as a whole and for each of four geographic regions. Individual diagnosis groups with significant variation in the mean number of units transfused among the months are also listed and discussed. To aid in the interpretation of mean monthly transfusion rates for the various diagnosis groups, a list of operative procedures with significant variation in the quarterly frequency is offered. Diagnosis groups with significant variation in the mean transfusion rate among the four geographic regions are presented with interpretation of the data.

The outdating of units of blood can be reduced by decreasing the amount of time they spend in an assigned or crossmatched status. This reduction can be achieved in a hospital by establishing a maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) which reduces the excessive number of units of blood crossmatched preoperatively for patients undergoing elective surgery. The various steps which occurred in the development of a MSBOS in a large general hospital are detailed and the projected reduction in the number of crossmatched units which can be achieved with the MSBOS is illustrated. illustrated. The projected number of units of blood transfused to patients during their hospitalization for 50 common primary surgical procedures in the United States during 1974 is presented as a basis for defining maximum blood orders for each procedure.

The factor or constellation of factors which precipitates blood transfusion in hospitals can be termed the "transfusion trigger." The blood transfusion experience of 535,031 male and female surgical patients was compared in order to evaluate the importance of the hematocrit as a component of this transfusion trigger. Transfusion data presented support the hypothesis that surgeons use the same support and ceiling hematocrit levels to regulate blood transfusion in men and women, despite the fact that women have lower hematocrits. The use of a lower hematocrit support level to govern the blood transfusion of female surgical patients should be considered. Data cited showing that women have a degree of physiologic adaptation to their lower hematocrits suggest that this change could be introduced without causing increased morbidity. A net saving of blood would most certainly result from it.

Excessive preoperative crossmatching can be limited with a maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) which is a list of the commonly performed elective surgical procedures performed in a hospital with the maximum number of units of blood which will be crossmatched preoperatively for each. The purpose of this study was to analyze the blood requirements of 535,031 surgical patients treated in 300 United States hospitals during 1974, and to suggest maximum preoperative blood orders including type and screen recommendations based on data derived from this large national patient sample. Such recommendations are offered for 63 common elective surgical procedures. Specific reference is made to blood utilization during hysterectomy, transurethral resection of the prostate, and cesarean section. A preoperative type and screen order is adequate for the vast majority of patients undergoing these latter procedures.

We performed a retrospective study of 167 women undergoing hysterectomy in a large tertiary-care teaching hospital in order to assess intraoperative blood requirements and to study the decision-making process that occurs when blood is transfused intraoperatively. Recommended preoperative blood orders for hysterectomy patients based on data from the study are provided. Although "type and screen" is commonly considered to be an adequate preoperative order for patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy, our data indicate that 2 units may be a more appropriate order when the procedure is combined with pelvic floor repair. The preoperative hematocrit, the estimated intraoperative blood loss, and the duration of the hysterectomy were integral to the decision-making process. If women undergoing hysterectomy were transfused intraoperatively only when their hematocrit actually fell to 30 percent, and not in anticipation of such an event, unnecessary transfusions would be reduced.

The risk of abbreviating the major crossmatch in urgent situations by issuing blood after an "immediate spin" phase was evaluated by a retrospective study of 82,647 crossmatches performed on serum from approximately 13,950 patients. Although the initial screening test for unexpected antibodies for all patients failed to show agglutination or hemolysis of the reagent red blood cells, agglutination was subsequently noted during at least one crossmatch performed for 148 of them. Further evaluation of these patients' serums indicated that most positive reactions were due to weakly reactive low thermal amplitude antibodies. Eight of the incompatible crossmatches were related to antibodies in the Kell, Kidd or Rh systems, and a ninth antibody, anti-E, was identified through subsequent evaluation of a cold antibody-induced crossmatch incompatibility. Issuance of blood in urgent situations after an "immediate spin" phase of the crossmatch, for patients whose red blood cells have been typed, and whose serums have been screened for unexpected antibodies, has a low level of risk.

Prior studies have suggested that a high percentage of blood transfusions to hospital patients are unnecessary. If such transfusions can be reduced, more blood would be made available for those patients with legitimate blood requirements. In this study, blood transfusion of 401 nonoperated hospital patients with anemia as the final diagnosis explaining admission and with admission hemoglobin values equal to or greater than 10 gm/dl was analyzed. These patients were drawn from a 300 hospital sample distributed across the United States. Descriptive data showing the extent to which this selected population of patients is transfused with blood must be considered as one measure of unnecessary blood transfusion in this country. Hospital-based programs designed to identify and eliminate unnecessary blood transfusions should be established. The first step in the creation of such programs at the hospital level must be the development of guidelines for blood transfusion derived through the cooperative efforts of hospital physicians who fully understand and accept the rationale for them. Once guidelines for blood transfusion are established in a hospital, transfusion practice need only be measured against them.