Approach to red blood cell transfusions in post-operative congenital heart disease surgery patients: when to stop?

Author:

Tanyildiz MuratORCID,Gungormus Asiye,Erden Selin Ece,Ozden Omer,Bicer Mehmet,Akcevin Atif,Odemis Ender

Abstract

Abstract Background: The best transfusion approach for CHD surgery is controversial. Studies suggest two strategies: liberal (haemoglobin ≤ 9.5 g/dL) and restrictive (waiting for transfusion until haemoglobin ≤ 7.0 g/dL if the patient is stable). Here we compare liberal and restrictive transfusion in post-operative CHD patients in a cardiac intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted on CHD patients who received liberal transfusion (2019–2021, n=53) and restrictive transfusion (2021–2022, n=43). Results: The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, Paediatric Risk of Mortality-3 score, Paediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 score, Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery-1 score, cardiopulmonary bypass time, vasoactive inotropic score, total fluid balance, mechanical ventilation duration, length of cardiac intensive care unit stay, and mortality. The liberal transfusion group had a higher pre-operative haemoglobin level than the restrictive group (p < 0.05), with no differences in pre-operative anaemia. Regarding the minimum and maximum post-operative haemoglobin levels during a cardiac intensive care unit stay, the liberal group had higher haemoglobin levels in both cases (p<0.01 and p=0.019, respectively). The number of red blood cell transfusions received by the liberal group was higher than that of the restrictive group (p < 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups regarding lactate levels at the time of and after red blood cell transfusion. The incidence of bleeding, re-operation, acute kidney injury, dialysis, sepsis, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome was similar. Conclusions: Restrictive transfusion may be preferable over liberal transfusion. Achieving similar outcomes with restrictive transfusions may provide promising evidence for future studies.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,General Medicine,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3