BACKGROUND: Using algorithms based on point of care coagulation tests can decrease blood loss and blood component transfusion after cardiac surgery. We wished to test the hypothesis that a management algorithm based on near-patient tests would reduce blood loss and blood component use after routine coronary artery surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass when compared with an algorithm based on routine laboratory assays or with clinical judgement. METHODS:Patients (n=102) undergoing elective coronary artery surgery with cardiac bypass were randomized into two groups. In the point of care group, the management algorithm was based on information provided by three devices, the Hepcon, thromboelastography and the PFA-100 platelet function analyser. Management in the laboratory test group depended on rapidly available laboratory clotting tests and transfusion of haemostatic blood components only if specific criteria were met. Blood loss and transfusion was compared between these two groups and with a retrospective case-control group (n=108), in which management of bleeding had been according to the clinician's discretion. RESULTS: All three groups had similar median blood losses. The transfusion of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) and blood components was greater in the clinician discretion group (P<0.05) but there was no difference in the transfusion of PRBCs and blood components between the two algorithm-guided groups. CONCLUSION: Following algorithms based on point of care tests or on structured clinical practice with standard laboratory tests does not decrease blood loss, but reduces the transfusion of PRBCs and blood components after routine cardiac surgery, when compared with clinician discretion. Cardiac surgery services should use transfusion guidelines based on laboratory-guided algorithms, and the possible benefits of point of care testing should be tested against this standard.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Using algorithms based on point of care coagulation tests can decrease blood loss and blood component transfusion after cardiac surgery. We wished to test the hypothesis that a management algorithm based on near-patient tests would reduce blood loss and blood component use after routine coronary artery surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass when compared with an algorithm based on routine laboratory assays or with clinical judgement. METHODS:Patients (n=102) undergoing elective coronary artery surgery with cardiac bypass were randomized into two groups. In the point of care group, the management algorithm was based on information provided by three devices, the Hepcon, thromboelastography and the PFA-100 platelet function analyser. Management in the laboratory test group depended on rapidly available laboratory clotting tests and transfusion of haemostatic blood components only if specific criteria were met. Blood loss and transfusion was compared between these two groups and with a retrospective case-control group (n=108), in which management of bleeding had been according to the clinician's discretion. RESULTS: All three groups had similar median blood losses. The transfusion of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) and blood components was greater in the clinician discretion group (P<0.05) but there was no difference in the transfusion of PRBCs and blood components between the two algorithm-guided groups. CONCLUSION: Following algorithms based on point of care tests or on structured clinical practice with standard laboratory tests does not decrease blood loss, but reduces the transfusion of PRBCs and blood components after routine cardiac surgery, when compared with clinician discretion. Cardiac surgery services should use transfusion guidelines based on laboratory-guided algorithms, and the possible benefits of point of care testing should be tested against this standard.
Authors: Alexander A Hanke; Ulf Herold; Daniel Dirkmann; Konstantinos Tsagakis; Heinz Jakob; Klaus Görlinger Journal: Transfus Med Hemother Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: Paolo G Merlani; Catherine Chenaud; Silvia Cottini; Guido Reber; Philippe Garnerin; Philippe de Moerloose; Bara Ricou Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-07-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Anthony F Rossi; Danyal M Khan; Robert Hannan; Juan Bolivar; Michel Zaidenweber; Redmond Burke Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: F William Mauldin; Francesco Viola; Theresa C Hamer; Eman M Ahmed; Shawna B Crawford; Doris M Haverstick; Michael B Lawrence; William F Walker Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 3.786