OBJECTIVES: Publications in the surgical literature are very consistent in their conclusions that blood is dangerous with regard to in-hospital mortality, morbidity and long-term survival. Blood is frequently used as a volume expander while simultaneously increasing the haematocrit. We investigated the effects of a single-unit blood transfusion on long-term survival post-cardiac surgery in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting patients. METHODS: A prospective single-institution cardiac surgery database was analysed involving 4615 patients. Univariate, multivariate stepwise Cox regression analysis and propensity matching were performed to identify whether a single-unit blood transfusion was detrimental to long-term survival. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that blood was significantly associated with a reduced long-term survival even with a single-unit transfused, P = 0.0001. Cox multivariate regression analysis identified age, ejection fraction, preoperative dialysis, logistic EuroSCORE, postoperative CKMB, blood transfusion, urgent operative status and atrial fibrillation as significant factors determining long-term survival. When the Cox regression was repeated with patients who received no blood or only one unit of blood, transfusion was not a risk factor for long-term survival. An interaction analysis revealed that blood transfusion was significantly interacting with preoperative haemoglobin levels, P = 0.02. Propensity analysis demonstrated that a single-unit transfusion is not associated with a detrimental long-term survival, P = 0.3. CONCLUSIONS: Cox regression and propensity matching both indicate that a single-unit transfusion is not a significant cause of reduced long-term survival. Preoperative anaemia is a significant confounding factor. Despite demonstrating the negligible risks of a single-unit blood transfusion, we are not advocating liberal transfusion and would recommend changing from a double-unit to a single-unit transfusion policy. We speculate that blood is not bad, but that the underlying reason that it is given might be.
OBJECTIVES: Publications in the surgical literature are very consistent in their conclusions that blood is dangerous with regard to in-hospital mortality, morbidity and long-term survival. Blood is frequently used as a volume expander while simultaneously increasing the haematocrit. We investigated the effects of a single-unit blood transfusion on long-term survival post-cardiac surgery in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting patients. METHODS: A prospective single-institution cardiac surgery database was analysed involving 4615 patients. Univariate, multivariate stepwise Cox regression analysis and propensity matching were performed to identify whether a single-unit blood transfusion was detrimental to long-term survival. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that blood was significantly associated with a reduced long-term survival even with a single-unit transfused, P = 0.0001. Cox multivariate regression analysis identified age, ejection fraction, preoperative dialysis, logistic EuroSCORE, postoperative CKMB, blood transfusion, urgent operative status and atrial fibrillation as significant factors determining long-term survival. When the Cox regression was repeated with patients who received no blood or only one unit of blood, transfusion was not a risk factor for long-term survival. An interaction analysis revealed that blood transfusion was significantly interacting with preoperative haemoglobin levels, P = 0.02. Propensity analysis demonstrated that a single-unit transfusion is not associated with a detrimental long-term survival, P = 0.3. CONCLUSIONS:Cox regression and propensity matching both indicate that a single-unit transfusion is not a significant cause of reduced long-term survival. Preoperative anaemia is a significant confounding factor. Despite demonstrating the negligible risks of a single-unit blood transfusion, we are not advocating liberal transfusion and would recommend changing from a double-unit to a single-unit transfusion policy. We speculate that blood is not bad, but that the underlying reason that it is given might be.
Authors: Martin David Berger; Bernhard Gerber; Kornelius Arn; Oliver Senn; Urs Schanz; Georg Stussi Journal: Haematologica Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Mikhael F El-Chami; Patrick Kilgo; Vinod Thourani; Omar M Lattouf; David B Delurgio; Robert A Guyton; Angel R Leon; John D Puskas Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael J Domanski; Kenneth Mahaffey; Vic Hasselblad; Sorin J Brener; Peter K Smith; Graham Hillis; Milo Engoren; John H Alexander; Jerrold H Levy; Bernard R Chaitman; Samuel Broderick; Michael J Mack; Karen S Pieper; Michael E Farkouh Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gavin J Murphy; Barnaby C Reeves; Chris A Rogers; Syed I A Rizvi; Lucy Culliford; Gianni D Angelini Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Camilo A Velasquez; Mrinal Singh; Syed Usman Bin Mahmood; Adam J Brownstein; Mohammad A Zafar; Ayman Saeyeldin; Bulat A Ziganshin; John A Elefteriades Journal: Int J Angiol Date: 2017-07-27
Authors: Aryeh Shander; Susan M Goobie; Matthew A Warner; Matti Aapro; Elvira Bisbe; Angel A Perez-Calatayud; Jeannie Callum; Melissa M Cushing; Wayne B Dyer; Jochen Erhard; David Faraoni; Shannon Farmer; Tatyana Fedorova; Steven M Frank; Bernd Froessler; Hans Gombotz; Irwin Gross; Nicole R Guinn; Thorsten Haas; Jeffrey Hamdorf; James P Isbister; Mazyar Javidroozi; Hongwen Ji; Young-Woo Kim; Daryl J Kor; Johann Kurz; Sigismond Lasocki; Michael F Leahy; Cheuk-Kwong Lee; Jeong Jae Lee; Vernon Louw; Jens Meier; Anna Mezzacasa; Manuel Munoz; Sherri Ozawa; Marco Pavesi; Nina Shander; Donat R Spahn; Bruce D Spiess; Jackie Thomson; Kevin Trentino; Christoph Zenger; Axel Hofmann Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 5.108