3.8 Article

Use of albumin, blood transfusion and intraoperative glucose by APA and ADARPEF members:: a postal survey

期刊

PAEDIATRIC ANAESTHESIA
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 685-689

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.00736.x

关键词

albumin; children; transfusion; fluid balance : intraoperative; fluid therapy; gelatines; hetastarch; infusion : glucose; metabolism : glucose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and methods: A postal survey was mailed to the members of Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (APA) (n=187) and French-Language Society of Paediatric Anaesthesiologists (ADARPEF) (n=220) to primarily investigate the impact of a recently published Cochrane report on the clinical use of albumin solutions in paediatric anaesthetic practice. At the same time, information regarding blood transfusion strategies and the use of intraoperative glucose containing maintenance solutions was gathered. Results: The response rate of the survey was 38% and 25% for APA and ADARPEF members, respectively. Forty-one percent of APA members reported a reduced use of albumin containing solutions following the publication of the Cochrane report compared to eight percent in the ADARPEF group (P < 0.0001). Albumin continues to be the most frequently used plasma expander in premature babies and neonates, whereas many colleagues use alternative colloids in infants and older children. A clear difference was observed in the 1-12-year-old age group between APA members favouring the use of gelatines and ADARPEF members who instead frequently use hetastarch solutions. ADARPEF members appeared to have a slightly more restrictive attitude towards blood transfusion and also reported more widespread use of erythropoetin (56% versus 9%, P < 0.0001) and predilution techniques (40% versus 23%, P < 0.04) compared with APA members. Regarding intraoperative maintenance solutions, a large proportion of both APA and ADARPEF members still use high concentrations of glucose intraoperatively, even in older children.

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

3.8
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