Search

Objective To investigate the safety and effects of a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy in pediatric cardiac surgery patients. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Pediatric ICU in an academic tertiary care center, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. Patients One hundred seven patients with non-cyanotic congenital heart defects between 6 weeks and 6 years of age. One hundred three patients underwent corrective surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass. Interventions Prior to surgery patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups with specific RBC transfusion thresholds: Hb 10.8 g/dl (6.8 mmol/l) and Hb 8.0 g/dl (5.0 mmol/l). Measurements Length of stay in hospital (primary outcome), length of stay in PICU, duration of ventilation (secondary outcome), incidence of adverse events and complications related to randomization (intention to treat analysis). Results In the restrictive transfusion group, mean volume of transfused RBC was 186 (±70) ml per patient and in the liberal transfusion group 258 (±87) ml per patient, (95 % CI 40.6-104.6), p < 0.001. Length of hospital stay was shorter in patients with a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: median 8 (IQR 7-11) vs. 9 (IQR 7-14) days, p = 0.047. All other outcome measures and incidence of adverse effects were equal in both RBC transfusion groups. Cost of blood products for the liberal transfusion group was 438.35 (±203.39) vs. 316.27 (±189.96) euros (95 % CI 46.61-197.51) per patient in the restrictive transfusion group, p = 0.002. Conclusions For patients with a non-cyanotic congenital heart defect undergoing elective cardiac surgery, a restrictive RBC transfusion policy (threshold of Hb 8.0 g/dl) during the entire perioperative period is safe, leads to a shorter hospital stay and is less expensive., Author(s): D. H. de Gast-Bakker [sup.1], R. B. P. de Wilde [sup.1] [sup.6], M. G. Hazekamp [sup.2], V. Sojak [sup.2], J. J. Zwaginga [sup.3] [sup.4], R. Wolterbeek [sup.5], E. de [...]

We compared the accuracy and precision of the non-invasive Nexfin(®) device for determining systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure variation, with arterial blood pressure values measured from a radial artery catheter in 19 patients following upper abdominal surgery. Measurements were taken at baseline and following fluid loading. Pooled data results of the arterial blood pressures showed no difference between the two measurement modalities. Bland-Altman analysis of pulse pressure variation showed significant differences between values obtained from the radial artery catheter and Nexfin finger cuff technology (mean (SD) 1.49 (2.09)%, p < 0.001, coefficient of variation 24%, limits of agreement -2.71% to 5.69%). The effect of volume expansion on pulse pressure variation was identical between methods (concordance correlation coefficient 0.848). We consider the Nexfin monitor system to be acceptable for use in patients after major upper abdominal surgery without major cardiovascular compromise or haemodynamic support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiac output by modelflow pulse contour method can be monitored quantitatively and continuously only after an initial calibration, to adapt the model to an individual patient. The modelflow method computes beat-to-beat cardiac output (COmf) from the radial artery pressure, by simulating a three-element model of aortic impedance with post-mortem data from human aortas., Methods: In our improved version of modelflow (COmfc) we adapted this model to a real time measure of the aortic cross-sectional area (CSA) of the descending aorta just above the diaphragm, measured by a new transoesophageal echo device (HemoSonic 100). COmf and COmfc were compared with thermodilution cardiac output (COtd) in 24 patients in the intensive care unit. Each thermodilution value was the mean of four measurements equally spread over the ventilatory cycle., Results: Least squares regression of COtd vs COmf gave y=1.09x[95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.22], R2=0.15, and of COtd vs COmfc resulted in y=1.02x(95% CI 0.96-1.08), R2=0.69. The limits of agreement of the un-calibrated COmf were -3.53 to 2.79, bias=0.37 litre min(-1) and of the diameter-calibrated method COmfc, -1.48 to 1.32, bias=-0.08 litre min(-1). The coefficient of variation for the difference between methods decreased from 28 (un-calibrated) to 12% after diameter-calibration., Conclusions: After diameter-calibration, the improved modelflow pulse contour method reliably estimates cardiac output without the need of a calibration with thermodilution, leading to a less invasive cardiac output monitoring method.