Alexandre Tran1, Jordan Heuser1, Timothy Ramsay2, Daniel I McIsaac2,3, Guillaume Martel4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. gumartel@toh.ca. 5. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. gumartel@toh.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Estimated blood loss (EBL) is an important tool in clinical decision-making and surgical outcomes research. It guides perioperative transfusion practice and serves as a key predictor of short-term perioperative risks and long-term oncologic outcomes. Despite its widespread clinical and research use, there is no gold standard for blood loss estimation. We sought to systematically review and compare techniques for intraoperative blood loss estimation in major non-cardiac surgery with the objective of informing clinical estimation and research standards. SOURCE: A structured search strategy was applied to Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 2020, to identify studies comparing methods of intraoperative blood loss in adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. We summarized agreement between groups of pairwise comparisons as visual estimation vs formula estimation, visual estimation vs other, and formula estimation vs other. For each of these comparisons, we described tendencies for higher or lower EBL values, consistency of findings, pooled mean differences, standard deviations, and confidence intervals. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We included 26 studies involving 3,297 patients in this review. We found that visual estimation is the most frequently studied technique. In addition, visual techniques tended to provide lower EBL values than formula-based estimation or other techniques, though this effect was not statistically significant in pooled analyses likely due to sample size limitations. When accounting for the contextual mean blood loss, similar case-to-case variation exists for all estimation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We found that significant case-by-case variation exists for all methods of blood loss evaluation and that there is significant disagreement between techniques. Given the importance placed on EBL, particularly for perioperative prognostication models, clinicians should consider the universal adoption of a practical and reproducible method for blood loss evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42015029439); registered: 18 November 2015.PROSPERO (CRD42015029439); registered: 18 November 2015.
PURPOSE: Estimated blood loss (EBL) is an important tool in clinical decision-making and surgical outcomes research. It guides perioperative transfusion practice and serves as a key predictor of short-term perioperative risks and long-term oncologic outcomes. Despite its widespread clinical and research use, there is no gold standard for blood loss estimation. We sought to systematically review and compare techniques for intraoperative blood loss estimation in major non-cardiac surgery with the objective of informing clinical estimation and research standards. SOURCE: A structured search strategy was applied to Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 2020, to identify studies comparing methods of intraoperative blood loss in adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. We summarized agreement between groups of pairwise comparisons as visual estimation vs formula estimation, visual estimation vs other, and formula estimation vs other. For each of these comparisons, we described tendencies for higher or lower EBL values, consistency of findings, pooled mean differences, standard deviations, and confidence intervals. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We included 26 studies involving 3,297 patients in this review. We found that visual estimation is the most frequently studied technique. In addition, visual techniques tended to provide lower EBL values than formula-based estimation or other techniques, though this effect was not statistically significant in pooled analyses likely due to sample size limitations. When accounting for the contextual mean blood loss, similar case-to-case variation exists for all estimation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We found that significant case-by-case variation exists for all methods of blood loss evaluation and that there is significant disagreement between techniques. Given the importance placed on EBL, particularly for perioperative prognostication models, clinicians should consider the universal adoption of a practical and reproducible method for blood loss evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42015029439); registered: 18 November 2015.PROSPERO (CRD42015029439); registered: 18 November 2015.
Authors: Janny Xue Chen Ke; Daniel I McIsaac; Ronald B George; Paula Branco; E Francis Cook; W Scott Beattie; Robin Urquhart; David B MacDonald Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 6.713