4.1 Review

Blood transfusion and alternatives in Jehovah's Witness patients

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 125-130

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000961

关键词

anemia; blood product; Jehovah's Witness; transfusion alternative

资金

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, VCU Health System, Richmond, Virginia, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review emphasizes the unique blood management needs of Jehovah's Witness patients during the perioperative period, highlighting the importance of optimizing preoperative hemoglobin levels, using blood-salvaging methods intraoperatively, and minimizing blood draws postoperatively. Additionally, it introduces the technologies currently in development as transfusion alternatives, such as hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers, and discusses recent progress made in the field of synthetic blood alternatives and hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers.
Purpose of review More than 8.5 million people in the world observe the Jehovah's Witness faith, and require unique consideration for perioperative blood management as they generally refuse transfusion of blood and blood products. This review addresses a collaborative approach to each patient throughout the perioperative arena. The principles of this approach include optimization of hemoglobin levels preoperatively, attention to blood-salvaging methods intraoperatively, and minimization of blood draws postoperatively. In addition, we review the technologies currently in development as transfusion alternatives, including hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers. Recent findings Progress has been made recently in the field of synthetic blood alternatives and hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers, which may lead to improved outcomes in this patient population. Utilization of multiple prevention and mitigation strategies to optimize oxygen supply and decrease oxygen demand will lead to decreased incidence of critical anemia and subsequent improved mortality in Jehovah's Witness patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据