Using blood wisely in oncology patients: An institutional analysis of the Choosing Wisely Canada restrictive transfusion strategy guidelines.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10-10
Author(s):  
Megan Elizabeth Tesch ◽  
Mae Alghawas ◽  
Alina S. Gerrie
Keyword(s):  
Single Unit ◽  
Hematological Malignancies ◽  
Choosing Wisely ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion ◽  
Solid Malignancies ◽  
Audit Period ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy

10 Background: Numerous studies support the safety of single-unit red red blood cell (RBC) transfusions and restrictive pre-transfusion hemoglobin (Hg) thresholds (≤ 70-80 g/L) among diverse populations of hospitalized patients, including those with malignancies on myelosuppressive systemic therapy. Using Blood Wisely is a national Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) initiative that challenges hospitals to benchmark themselves on evidence-informed restrictive transfusion strategies, with the aim to decrease inappropriate RBC transfusions in Canada. We assessed transfusion practices among oncology inpatients at BC Cancer Vancouver Centre as part of this initiative and performed an exploratory analysis among outpatients. Methods: BC Cancer Vancouver RBC transfusion records were obtained for the period of October 2019-September 2020. The percentage of single-unit transfusions and transfusions for Hg ≤ 80 g/L were measured, to assess adherence to CWC targets of ≥ 65% and ≥ 80%, respectively, for these metrics. Univariate analyses were used to compare treatment variables and transfusion outcomes. Results: During the 1-year audit period, 120 inpatient and 586 outpatient RBC transfusions occurred. For inpatient transfusions, 40.8% (n = 49) were single-unit and 79.2% (n = 95) were for Hg ≤ 80 g/L. For outpatient transfusions, 11.8% (n = 69) were single-unit and 65.7% (n = 304) were for Hg ≤ 80 g/L. Outpatients and patients with solid malignancies were more likely to receive multiple-unit transfusions, compared to inpatients (p < 0.001) and patients with hematological malignancies (p < 0.001), respectively. Patients with solid malignancies and those on active treatment were more likely to be transfused when Hg was > 80 g/L, compared to patients with hematological malignancies (p = 0.004) and those off treatment (p = 0.003), respectively. Multiple RBC units were more likely to transfused when the interval from pre-transfusion bloodwork to receipt of transfusion was > 3 days (p = 0.029). Conclusions: A high rate of inappropriate RBC transfusions are being ordered for oncology patients at our institution, in discordance with CWC restrictive transfusion strategy guidelines. Quality improvement interventions are planned to adopt best practices in transfusion medicine in this high-use population.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial: a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, crossover non-inferiority trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e037238
Author(s):  
Mineji Hayakawa ◽  
Takashi Tagami ◽  
Hiroaki IIjima ◽  
Daisuke Kudo ◽  
Kazuhiko Sekine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Severe Bleeding ◽  
Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Transfusion Requirements ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Rbc Transfusion

IntroductionResuscitation using blood products is critical during the acute postinjury period. However, the optimal target haemoglobin (Hb) levels have not been adequately investigated. With the restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial, we aim to compare the restrictive and liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies.Methods and analysisThis is a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority trial of patients with severe trauma at 22 hospitals that have been randomised in a 1:1 ratio based on the use of a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy with target Hb levels of 70–90 or 100–120 g/L, respectively, during the first year. Subsequently, after 1-month washout period, another transfusion strategy will be applied for an additional year. RBC transfusion requirements are usually unclear on arrival at the emergency department. Therefore, patients with severe bleeding, which could lead to haemorrhagic shock, will be included in the trial based on the attending physician’s judgement. Each RBC transfusion strategy will be applied until 7 days postadmission to the hospital or discharge from the intensive care unit. The outcomes measured will include the 28-day survival rate after arrival at the emergency department (primary), the cumulative amount of blood transfused, event-free days and frequency of transfusion-associated lung injury and organ failure (secondary). Demonstration of the non-inferiority of restrictive transfusion will emphasise its clinical advantages.Ethics and disseminationThe trial will be performed according to the Japanese and International Ethical guidelines. It has been approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating hospital and The Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma (JAST). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients or their representatives. The results of the trial will be disseminated to the participating hospitals and board-certified educational institutions of JAST, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication, and presented at congresses.Trial registration numberUMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000034405. Registered 8 October 2018.

scholarly journals Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Is More Effective in Massive Burns: Results of the TRIBE Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina L Palmieri ◽  
James H Holmes ◽  
Brett Arnoldo ◽  
Michael Peck ◽  
Amalia Cochran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wound Healing ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Inhalation Injury ◽  
Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion ◽  
Blood Utilization ◽  
Outcome Differences ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy

Abstract Objectives Studies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20–59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy. Methods Patients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin &lt;7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin &lt;10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes. Results Three hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p &lt; 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p &lt; 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p &lt; 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20–59%) group (p &gt; 0.05). Conclusions: A restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing.

515 Compliance with a Restrictive Blood Transfusion Strategy: Do We Actually Follow Scientific Evidence?

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S95-S95
Author(s):  
David L Wallace ◽  
Alan D Rogers ◽  
Robert Cartotto
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Inhalation Injury ◽  
Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Trigger Strategy ◽  
Transfusion Requirements ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy

Abstract Introduction Many burn centers use a restrictive blood transfusion strategy based on randomized controlled trials in burn patients (e.g. Transfusion Requirements in Burn Care Evaluation -TRIBE) and non-burn populations (e.g. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care – TRICC), which have demonstrated no increased morbidity or mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion approaches. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adherence to a restrictive hemoglobin transfusion trigger strategy of 7 g/dL. Methods Retrospective study of all patients admitted to an adult regional ABA-verified burn centre between 15/11/ 2015 and 15/6/2018 who received at least one unit of blood (RBC). We use a restrictive transfusion strategy that administers RBC for a hemoglobin (HGb) &lt; 7 gm/dL, one unit at a time, with a pre and post HGb level for each RBC transfusion, unless the patient is actively bleeding and/or hemodynamically unstable. RBC transfusions in the operating room do not follow this policy and were not studied. Values are presented as mean ± SD or median (IQR) as appropriate. Results We studied 66 patients (30% female) with age 53.2 ± 18.3 years, % TBSA burn 22 (11–41), % TBSA full thickness burn 6.5 (0.5 -21.8), and with 41% having inhalation injury. Overall, there were 691 RBC transfusions (TXns). A pre-TXn HGb was obtained 95% of the time and was 6.8 (6.5–7) gm/dL. TXn for a HGb &gt; 7 gm/dL occurred in 35%. A post TXn HGb was obtained for 92% of these TXns with a HGb of 7.6 (7.2–8) gm/dL. RBC TXns during nighttime (1700 to 0800, n=449) were given for a HGb trigger of 6.8 (6.4–6.9) and were not compliant with our restrictive strategy 22% of the time. Daytime transfusions (0800 to 1700, n=207) were given for a significantly higher HGb [7 (6.7–7.1), p&lt; 0.001] with significantly more non-compliance with the restrictive strategy (50%, p&lt; 0.001). We also compared TXns before and after the TRIBE publication. Pre-TRIBE TXns (n=484) were given for significantly lower HGb than 172 post TRIBE TXns [6.8 (6.4–7) vs 6.9 (6.6–7.1) gm/dL respectively, p=0.001] and at significantly lower rate of non-compliance with the 7 gm/dL threshold than post TRIBE transfusions (28.1% vs 37.8%, respectively, p=0.02). Conclusions While a pre-TXn HGb level was available for 95% of blood transfusions, approximately one-third were given for a HGb &gt; 7 gm/dL. Transfusion during nighttime (being predominantly ordered by housestaff physicians) were administered at a significantly lower HGb trigger and with significantly better compliance with the restrictive strategy than daytime transfusions. Paradoxically, compliance with the restrictive strategy was worse following the TRIBE publication. Applicability of Research to Practice These results identify important areas for improvement in adherence to our restrictive transfusion strategy.

Effect of a Liberal Versus Restrictive Transfusion Strategy on Mortality in Patients With Moderate to Severe Head Injury

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauralyn A. McIntyre ◽  
Dean A. Fergusson ◽  
James S. Hutchison ◽  
Giuseppe Pagliarello ◽  
John C. Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head Injury ◽  
Severe Head Injury ◽  
Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy

scholarly journals Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Does Not Affect Clinical Prognosis in Patients with Ectopic Pregnancy

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanjuan Huang ◽  
Yi Liang ◽  
He Ma ◽  
Mei Ling ◽  
Xuelian Ran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Ectopic Pregnancy ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy

To assess the effects of restrictive transfusion strategy on hemoglobin (Hb) levels and prognosis in patients with ectopic pregnancy and severe hemorrhage undergoing emergency surgery, patient data were collected from 2012 to 2016. Following transfusion guidelines, restrictive transfusion was performed; at Hb levels of 60–70 to 100 g/L, transfusion was continued or not based on disease status. The patients were divided into four groups: blood loss < 400 ml (N1), 400–799 ml (N2), 800–1199 ml (N3), and ≥1200 ml (N4). Several prognosis parameters were assessed. GroupN4 was further divided based on blood loss amounts (1200–1999, 2000–2999, 3000–3999, and 4000–5000 ml) for subgroup analyses. Blood loss, hemoglobin levels at discharge, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were not associated with patient prognostic parameters, including intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy, cure, and healing rates, and surgical complications and hospital stay. No statistically significant difference was obtained in hospital stay amongN1,N2, andN3 groups. Compared withN1 patients, cases with blood loss ≥ 1200 ml had significantly longer hospital stay. Interestingly, hospital stay was correlated with surgical approach, location of pregnancy, and operation time. Restrictive transfusion strategy could be safely used for emergency surgery in ectopic pregnancy with acute blood loss.

RED BLOOD CELL TRANSFUSION CAN WORSE ORGAN DIS-FUNCTION AND MORTALITY IN PATIENTS SUBMITTED TO RESTRICTIVE TRANSFUSION STRATEGY.

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. A127
Author(s):  
Rafael B Tomita ◽  
Daniele M Torres ◽  
Maria Tereza M Ferrari ◽  
João M Silva ◽  
Paulo Sérgio D Urtado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Cell ◽  
Red Blood Cell ◽  
Red Blood Cell Transfusion ◽  
Transfusion Strategy ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion ◽  
Restrictive Transfusion Strategy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document