4.2 Article

Transfusion practice in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in New Zealand-impact of the TRICS III study (the TRICS TRIPS study)

Journal

NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 135, Issue 1562, Pages 34-47

Publisher

NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2017.10.036

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Health Research Council of New Zealand
  2. [15-298]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that after the publication of a large multicenter clinical trial, clinicians involved in the care of cardiac surgery patients became more restrictive in their administration of red blood cell transfusions.
AIM: Cardiac surgery is the largest perioperative user of donated blood products. There is significant uncertainty as to the optimal threshold for RBC transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with little evidence to guide practice. We wished to determine whether the results of a large randomised controlled trial had changed practice. METHODS: A prospective observational study of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery utilising cardiopulmonary bypass was undertaken as well as a cross-sectional self-administered online practice survey of clinicians ordering red blood cell transfusions in all publicly funded cardiac centres in New Zealand. RESULTS: Significantly more transfusions were administered to a pre-transfusion haemoglobin <75g/L and thus considered in agreement with the restrictive arm of the TRICS III study after completion of TRICS III study enrolment and before results were known (T1)=44% when compared to after results were known (T2=56.7%, p=0.01). Most respondents in the clinician survey had participated in the TRICS III study. CONCLUSIONS: After the publication of the findings of a large multi-national clinical trial, clinicians involved in the care of cardiac surgery patients were more restrictive in their administration of red blood cell transfusions than before the trial findings were published.

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