4.5 Article

Iatrogenic Blood Loss in Very Low Birth Weight Infants and Transfusion of Packed Red Blood Cells in a Tertiary Care Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Journal

CHILDREN-BASEL
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children8100847

Keywords

VLBW neonate; blood sampling; blood transfusion; iatrogenic blood loss

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the iatrogenic blood loss in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants from birth to hospital discharge. It found that the cumulative amount of blood sampling and lower hematocrit at birth were independent predictors for the necessity of blood transfusion. Optimized patient blood management in VLBW neonates should include sparse blood sampling to avoid iatrogenic blood loss.
An adequate blood volume is important for neonatal adaptation. The study objective was to quantify the cumulative iatrogenic blood loss in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants by blood sampling and the necessity of packed red cell transfusions from birth to discharge from the hospital. In total, 132 consecutive VLBW infants were treated in 2019 and 2020 with a median birth weight of 1180 g (range 370-1495 g) and a median length of stay of 54 days (range 0-154 days) were included. During the initial four weeks of life, the median absolute amount of blood sampling was 16.5 mL (IQR 12.3-21.1 mL), sampling volume was different with 14.0 mL (IQR 12.1-16.2 mL) for non-transfused infants and 21.6 mL (IQR 17.5-29.4 mL) for transfused infants. During the entire length of stay, 31.8% of the patients had at least one transfusion. In a generalized logistic regression model, the cumulative amount of blood sampling (p < 0.01) and lower hematocrit at birth (p = 0.02) were independent predictors for the necessity of blood transfusion. Therefore, optimized patient blood management in VLBW neonates should include sparse blood sampling to avoid iatrogenic blood loss.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available