Sebastian Jaramillo1,2, Mar Montane-Muntane1, Pedro L Gambus1,2,3, David Capitan1, Ricard Navarro-Ripoll1, Annabel Blasi1,3. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, "CLINIC de Barcelona" Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Systems Pharmacology Effect Control and Modeling (SPEC-M) Research Group, "CLINIC de Barcelona" Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. 3. "Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS)", Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perioperative blood loss is an essential parameter in research into Patient Blood Management. However, currently there is no "gold standard" method to quantify it. Direct measurements of blood loss are considered unreliable methods, and the formulae to estimate it have proven to be significantly inaccurate. Given the need for better research tools, this study evaluated an estimation of haemoglobin mass loss as an alternative approach to estimate perioperative blood loss, and compared it to estimations based on blood volume loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied one hundred consecutive patients undergoing urological laparoscopic surgery. Both haemoglobin mass loss and blood volume loss were directly measured during surgery, under highly controlled conditions for a reliable direct measurement of blood loss. Three formulae were studied: 1) a haemoglobin mass loss formula, which estimated blood loss in terms of haemoglobin mass loss, 2) the López-Picado's formula and 3) an empirical volume formula that estimated blood loss in terms of blood volume loss. The empirical volume formula was developed within the study with the aim of providing the best possible estimation of blood volume loss in the studied population. The formulae were evaluated and compared by assessing their agreements with their respective direct measurements of blood loss. RESULTS: The haemoglobin mass loss formula met the predefined agreement criterion of ±71 g, with 95% limits of agreement ranging from 0.6 to 44.1 g and a moderate overestimation of 22.4. In comparison to both blood volume loss formulae, the haemoglobin mass loss formula was superior in every agreement parameter evaluated. DISCUSSION: In this study, the estimation of haemoglobin mass loss was found to be a more accurate method to estimate perioperative blood loss. This estimation method could be a robust research tool, although more studies are needed to establish its reliability.
BACKGROUND: Perioperative blood loss is an essential parameter in research into Patient Blood Management. However, currently there is no "gold standard" method to quantify it. Direct measurements of blood loss are considered unreliable methods, and the formulae to estimate it have proven to be significantly inaccurate. Given the need for better research tools, this study evaluated an estimation of haemoglobin mass loss as an alternative approach to estimate perioperative blood loss, and compared it to estimations based on blood volume loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied one hundred consecutive patients undergoing urological laparoscopic surgery. Both haemoglobin mass loss and blood volume loss were directly measured during surgery, under highly controlled conditions for a reliable direct measurement of blood loss. Three formulae were studied: 1) a haemoglobin mass loss formula, which estimated blood loss in terms of haemoglobin mass loss, 2) the López-Picado's formula and 3) an empirical volume formula that estimated blood loss in terms of blood volume loss. The empirical volume formula was developed within the study with the aim of providing the best possible estimation of blood volume loss in the studied population. The formulae were evaluated and compared by assessing their agreements with their respective direct measurements of blood loss. RESULTS: The haemoglobin mass loss formula met the predefined agreement criterion of ±71 g, with 95% limits of agreement ranging from 0.6 to 44.1 g and a moderate overestimation of 22.4. In comparison to both blood volume loss formulae, the haemoglobin mass loss formula was superior in every agreement parameter evaluated. DISCUSSION: In this study, the estimation of haemoglobin mass loss was found to be a more accurate method to estimate perioperative blood loss. This estimation method could be a robust research tool, although more studies are needed to establish its reliability.
Authors: Timothy J George; Claude A Beaty; Arman Kilic; Kara A Haggerty; Steven M Frank; William J Savage; Glenn J Whitman Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-05-19 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Leslie D Montgomery; Wayne A Gerth; Richard W Montgomery; Susie Q Lew; Michael M Klein; Julian M Stewart; Marvin S Medow; Manuel T Velasquez Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Florian Piekarski; Lara Gerdessen; Elke Schmitt; Linda Tanner; Florian Wunderer; Vanessa Neef; Patrick Meybohm; Kai Zacharowski; Florian Jürgen Raimann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 3.240