Tarun Mehra1, Burkhardt Seifert2, Silvina Bravo-Reiter1, Guido Wanner3, Philipp Dutkowski4, Tomas Holubec5, Rudolf M Moos1, Jörk Volbracht1, Markus G Manz6, Donat R Spahn7. 1. Medical Directorate, University Hospital of Zurich. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich. 3. Division of Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery. 4. Department of Surgery & Transplantation. 5. Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery. 6. Department of Hematology. 7. Institute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient blood management (PBM) measures have been shown to be effective in reducing transfusions while maintaining patient outcome. The issuance of transfusion guidelines is seen as being key to the success of PBM programs. As the introduction of guidelines alone did not visibly reduce transfusions in our center, a monitoring and feedback program was established. The aim of our study was to show the effectiveness of such measures in reducing transfusions and cost. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We designed a prospective, interventional cohort study with a 3-year time frame (January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014). In total, 101,794 patients aged 18 years or older were included. The PBM monitoring and feedback program was introduced on January 1, 2014, with the subsequent issuance of quarterly reporting. RESULTS: Within the first year of introduction, transfusion of all allogeneic blood products per 1000 patients was reduced by 27% (red blood cell units, -24%; platelet units, -25%; and fresh-frozen plasma units, -37%; all p < 0.001) leading to direct allogeneic blood product related savings of more than 2 million USD. The number of blood products transfused per case was significantly reduced from 9 ± 19 to 7 ± 14 (p < 0.001). With an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.91), the introduction of our PBM monitoring and feedback program was a significant independent factor in the reduction of transfusion probability (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our PBM monitoring and feedback program was highly efficacious in reducing the transfusion of allogeneic blood products and transfusion-related costs.
BACKGROUND:Patient blood management (PBM) measures have been shown to be effective in reducing transfusions while maintaining patient outcome. The issuance of transfusion guidelines is seen as being key to the success of PBM programs. As the introduction of guidelines alone did not visibly reduce transfusions in our center, a monitoring and feedback program was established. The aim of our study was to show the effectiveness of such measures in reducing transfusions and cost. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We designed a prospective, interventional cohort study with a 3-year time frame (January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014). In total, 101,794 patients aged 18 years or older were included. The PBM monitoring and feedback program was introduced on January 1, 2014, with the subsequent issuance of quarterly reporting. RESULTS: Within the first year of introduction, transfusion of all allogeneic blood products per 1000 patients was reduced by 27% (red blood cell units, -24%; platelet units, -25%; and fresh-frozen plasma units, -37%; all p < 0.001) leading to direct allogeneic blood product related savings of more than 2 million USD. The number of blood products transfused per case was significantly reduced from 9 ± 19 to 7 ± 14 (p < 0.001). With an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.91), the introduction of our PBM monitoring and feedback program was a significant independent factor in the reduction of transfusion probability (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our PBM monitoring and feedback program was highly efficacious in reducing the transfusion of allogeneic blood products and transfusion-related costs.
Authors: Nareg H Roubinian; Jeanne E Hendrickson; Darrell J Triulzi; Jerome L Gottschall; Michael Michalkiewicz; Dhuly Chowdhury; Daryl J Kor; Mark R Looney; Michael A Matthay; Steven H Kleinman; Donald Brambilla; Edward L Murphy Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Hairil Rizal Abdullah; Ai Leen Ang; Bernd Froessler; Axel Hofmann; Jun Ho Jang; Young Woo Kim; Sigismond Lasocki; Jeong Jae Lee; Shir Ying Lee; Kar Koong Carol Lim; Gurpal Singh; Donat R Spahn; Tae Hyun Um Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Khalid S Khan; Philip A S Moore; Matthew J Wilson; Richard Hooper; Shubha Allard; Ian Wrench; Lee Beresford; Tracy E Roberts; Carol McLoughlin; James Geoghegan; Jane P Daniels; Sue Catling; Vicki A Clark; Paul Ayuk; Stephen Robson; Fang Gao-Smith; Matthew Hogg; Doris Lanz; Julie Dodds Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Giuseppe Ristagno; Simonetta Beluffi; Dario Tanzi; Federica Belloli; Paola Carmagnini; Massimo Croci; Giuseppe D'Aviri; Guido Menasce; Juan C Pastore; Armando Pellanda; Alberto Pollini; Giorgio Savoia Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Thomas Drabinski; Kai Zacharowski; Patrick Meybohm; Alexandra M Rüger; Antonio Ramirez de Arellano Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 3.845