4.4 Article

Incidence and mortality of massive transfusion in a university hospital:: Study of the period 2001-2005

期刊

MEDICINA CLINICA
卷 129, 期 10, 页码 366-371

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1157/13110210

关键词

massive transfusion; incidence; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There are few epidemiological studies on massive transfusion (MT), although they may be important to evaluate possible strategies to reduce the number of transfused units, as well as transfusion side-effects. We, therefore, retrospectively assessed the incidence of MT at our institution (a 700-bed university hospital) during a 5-year period. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Local blood bank records were searched for MT episodes occurred from January 2001 to December 2005. MT was defined as the transfusion of 8 or more packed red cell (PRC) units within 24 h. Patient's clinical data were exclusively gathered from the blood requesting form. RESULTS: Overall, 304 episodes of MT were identified in 288 patients (one episode per week), who received 4,845 PCR units (3,515 units within the first 24 h), because of ruptured aortic aneurism (n = 62), poly-trauma (n = 57), upper digestive bleeding (n = 51), cardiac surgery (n = 41), elective surgery (n = 36), emergency surgery (n =30), and oncology surgery (n =27). Mortality rate was 48%, and multivariate analysis identified age (odds ratio [OR] =1.023; 95% confidence interval [CI]. 1.006-1.040) and number of PRC transfused within the first 24 h (OR = 1.094; 95% CI, 1.0032-1.160) as weak but significant independent predictors of mortality, whereas poly-trauma diagnosis was a protective factor (OR = 0.325; 95% CI, 0.112 - 0,940). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the mortality rate among patients receiving MT was very high, and was influenced by the number of transfused units, patient's age, and admitting diagnose. As the majority of the MT episodes occurred within the surgical or polytraurna context, possible strategies to reduce the volume of MT are discussed.

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

4.4
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