Search

The association of cryoprecipitate transfusion with patient outcomes after cardiac surgery is unclear. We aimed to investigate the predictors of, and outcomes associated with postoperative cryoprecipitate transfusion in cardiac surgery patients.We used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III and IV databases. We included adults undergoing cardiac surgery, and propensity score matched cryoprecipitate-treated patients to controls. Using the matched cohort, we investigated the association of cryoprecipitate use with clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were infection, acute kidney injury, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and chest tube output at 2-hour intervals.Of 12,043 eligible patients, 283 (2.35%) patients received cryoprecipitate. The median dose was 5.83 units (IQR 4.17-7.24) given at a median first transfusion time of 1.75 hours (IQR 0.73-4.46) after intensive care unit admission. After propensity scoring, we matched 195 cryoprecipitate recipients to 743 controls. Postoperative cryoprecipitate transfusion was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.10; 99% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-2.84; p=0.791), infection (OR 0.77; 99% CI 0.45-1.34; p=0.220), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03; 99% CI 0.65-1.62; p=0.876) or cumulative chest tube output (adjusted mean difference 8 hrs post transfusion, 11 ml; 99% CI -104 to 125; p=0.804).Although cryoprecipitate was typically given to sicker patients with more bleeding, its administration was not associated with worse outcomes. Large, multicentred studies are warranted to further elucidate cryoprecipitate's safety profile and patterns of use in cardiac surgery.

Optimising junior doctor rosters is a common subject of debate both in Australia and overseas. While total work hours are recognised to increase the risk of fatigue-related complications for both junior doctors and their patients, patterns of work are less commonly described. Multiple low quality evidence recommendations exist to guide rostering practices to reduce predominantly the risk of fatigue-associated error and burnout, but also to avoid disruptions to continuity of care and provide adequate training opportunities. Given available evidence is poor, further centre and specialty-specific studies are required to delineate optimal rostering patterns for Australian junior doctors.