4.2 Article

The second Austrian benchmark study for blood use in elective surgery: results and practice change

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 54, Issue 10, Pages 2646-2657

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.12687

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Austrian Federal Structural Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundFive years after the first Austrian benchmark study demonstrated relatively high transfusion rate and an abundance of nonindicated transfusions in elective surgeries, this study was conducted to investigate the effects of the first benchmark study. Study Design and MethodsData from 3164 patients undergoing primary unilateral total hip replacement (THR), primary unilateral noncemented total knee replacement (TKR), or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery at 15 orthopedic and six cardiac centers were collected and compared with the first study. ResultsTransfusion rates decreased in THR (41% to 30%) and TKR (41% to 25%), but remained unchanged in CABG surgery (57% vs. 55%) compared with the first study. More than 80% of all transfusions involved at least 2 units of red blood cells (RBCs). Marked variations were observed in transfusion rates among the centers. The prevalence of anemia was three times higher in patients who received transfusions versus those who did not. However, preoperative anemia was left untreated in the majority of patients. A considerable intercenter variability of RBC loss ranging from 26% to 43% in THR, from 24% to 40% in TKR, and from 30% to 49% in CABG procedures was observed. ConclusionThe second benchmark study demonstrates substantial intercenter variability and small but significant reductions in RBC transfusions and RBC loss. Even though the main independent predictors of transfusion were the relative lost RBC volume followed by the relative preoperative and the lowest relative postoperative hemoglobin, preoperative anemia was not adequately treated in many patients, underscoring the importance of patient blood management in these patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available