Viscoelastic Assays Versus Massive Transfusion Protocols: A Pro/Con Debate

Massive transfusions guided by massive transfusion protocols are commonly used to manage critical bleeding, when the patient is at significant risk of morbidity and mortality, and multiple timely decisions must be made by clinicians. Clinical decision support systems are increasingly used to provide patient-specific recommendations by comparing patient information to a knowledge base, and have been shown to improve patient outcomes. To investigate current massive transfusion practice and the experiences and attitudes of anaesthetists towards massive transfusion and clinical decision support systems, we anonymously surveyed 1000 anaesthetists and anaesthesia trainees across Australia and New Zealand. A total of 228 surveys (23.6%) were successfully completed and 227 were analysed for a 23.3% response rate. Most respondents were involved in massive transfusions infrequently (88.1% managed five or fewer massive transfusion protocols per year) and worked at hospitals which have massive transfusion protocols (89.4%). Massive transfusion management was predominantly limited by timely access to point-of-care coagulation assessment and by competition with other tasks, with trainees reporting more significant limitations compared to specialists. The majority of respondents reported that they were likely, or very likely, both to use (73.1%) and to trust (85%) a clinical decision support system for massive transfusions, with no significant difference between anaesthesia trainees and specialists ( P = 0.375 and P = 0.73, respectively). While the response rate to our survey was poor, there was still a wide range of massive transfusion experience among respondents, with multiple subjective factors identified limiting massive transfusion practice. We identified several potential design features and barriers to implementation to assist with the future development of a clinical decision support system for massive transfusion, and overall wide support for a clinical decision support system for massive transfusion among respondents.

Download Full-text

Blood Provision for Cardiac Ablation (CA) Procedures in the Catheterization Laboratory; a Veteran Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) Experience in a Non-Trauma Center Setting

American Journal of Clinical Pathology ◽

10.1093/ajcp/aqaa161.365 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 154 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S167-S168

Author(s):

J M Petersen ◽

V Patel ◽

D Jhala

Keyword(s):

Quality Assurance ◽

Massive Transfusion ◽

Medical Center ◽

Case Series ◽

Blood Bank ◽

Cardiac Ablation ◽

Cardiac Perforation ◽

Catheterization Laboratory ◽

Massive Transfusion Protocol ◽

Transfusion Protocol

Abstract Introduction/Objective Cardiac perforation is a life-threatening complication (~1% risk, with reported rates between 0.2% to 5%) of CA procedures. As cardiac perforation may lead to extensive bleeding, it would be reasonable for a medical center carrying out CA to be capable of arranging for a massive transfusion protocol and for surgical repair as required. However, there is sparse literature to guide a non-trauma medical center implementing a CA program on what the number of red blood cell (RBC) units for crossmatch should be for each case. Methods In interdisciplinary collaborative meetings, the CA program logistics were agreed to between the multiple clinical services. Given the case series on the amount of drained blood in complicated cases, there was agreement that three units of RBCs would be crossmatched for each case. Education was provided on the massive transfusion protocol and on blood bank procedures. As part of quality assurance/quality improvement, records were reviewed from the beginning of the CA program (10/1/2019) to 1/31/2019 to determine number of patient cases, crossmatched units, and transfused units for quality assurance purposes. Results A total of fifteen patients underwent CA procedures, for which three units were crossmatched for each patient. As there were no cardiac perforations with the cardiac ablation procedures so far, no units were transfused. The organized approach for ensuring adequate blood bank support and education led to the reassurance, alleviation of clinical anxiety, and building of a successful CA program. Education sessions completed with thorough understanding of blood bank procedures including the massive transfusion protocol, labeling of blood bank specimens, and on ordering of blood for crossmatch. Conclusion This study provides a reference that may provide helpful guidance to other blood banks on what the number of RBCs to be crossmatched prior to each CA procedure. Multidisciplinary collaborative meetings in advance are an essential component for ensuring adequate support for CA procedures or any new service that requires blood product support. Thorough education of clinical staff on blood bank procedures particularly the massive transfusion protocol is also recommended. This procedure for massive transfusion should be available to be referred to in real time.

Download Full-text