Christopher J Little1, Glen E Leverson2, Laura L Hammel3, Joseph P Connor4, David P Al-Adra1. 1. Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 4. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unanticipated transfusion requirements during liver transplantation can delay lifesaving intraoperative resuscitation and strain blood bank resources. Risk-stratified preoperative blood preparation can mitigate these deleterious outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A two-tiered blood preparation protocol for liver transplantation was retrospectively evaluated. Eleven binary variables served as criteria for high-risk (HR) allocation. Primary outcomes included red blood cell (RBC), plasma (FFP), and platelet (Plt) utilization. Secondary outcomes included product under- and overpreparation. Contingency tables for transfusion requirements above the population means were generated using 15 clinical variables. Modified protocols were developed and retrospectively optimized using the study population. RESULTS: Of 225 recipients, 102 received HR preoperative orders, which correlated to higher intraoperative transfusion requirements. However, univariate analysis identified only two statistical risk factors per product: Hgb ≤7.8 g/dl (p < .001) and MELD ≥38 (p = .035) for RBCs, Hgb ≤7.8 g/dl (p = .002) and acute alcoholic hepatitis (p = 0.015) for FFP, and Hgb ≤7.8 g/dl (p = .001) and normothermic liver preservation (p = .037) for Plts. Based on these findings, we developed modified protocols for individual products, which were evaluated retrospectively for their effectiveness at reducing under-preparatory events while limiting product overpreparation. Cohort statistics were used to define the preparation strategy for each protocol. Retrospective comparative analysis demonstrated the superiority of the modified protocols by improving the under-preparation rate from 24% to <10% for each product, which required a 1.56-fold and 1.44-fold increase in RBC and FFP overpreparation, respectively. Importantly, there was no difference in Plt overpreparation. DISCUSSION: We report translatable data-driven blood bank preparation protocols for liver transplantation.
BACKGROUND: Unanticipated transfusion requirements during liver transplantation can delay lifesaving intraoperative resuscitation and strain blood bank resources. Risk-stratified preoperative blood preparation can mitigate these deleterious outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A two-tiered blood preparation protocol for liver transplantation was retrospectively evaluated. Eleven binary variables served as criteria for high-risk (HR) allocation. Primary outcomes included red blood cell (RBC), plasma (FFP), and platelet (Plt) utilization. Secondary outcomes included product under- and overpreparation. Contingency tables for transfusion requirements above the population means were generated using 15 clinical variables. Modified protocols were developed and retrospectively optimized using the study population. RESULTS: Of 225 recipients, 102 received HR preoperative orders, which correlated to higher intraoperative transfusion requirements. However, univariate analysis identified only two statistical risk factors per product: Hgb ≤7.8 g/dl (p < .001) and MELD ≥38 (p = .035) for RBCs, Hgb ≤7.8 g/dl (p = .002) and acute alcoholic hepatitis (p = 0.015) for FFP, and Hgb ≤7.8 g/dl (p = .001) and normothermic liver preservation (p = .037) for Plts. Based on these findings, we developed modified protocols for individual products, which were evaluated retrospectively for their effectiveness at reducing under-preparatory events while limiting product overpreparation. Cohort statistics were used to define the preparation strategy for each protocol. Retrospective comparative analysis demonstrated the superiority of the modified protocols by improving the under-preparation rate from 24% to <10% for each product, which required a 1.56-fold and 1.44-fold increase in RBC and FFP overpreparation, respectively. Importantly, there was no difference in Plt overpreparation. DISCUSSION: We report translatable data-driven blood bank preparation protocols for liver transplantation.
Authors: Stuart A McCluskey; Keyvan Karkouti; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Karen Kakizawa; Mohammed Ghannam; Ahmed Hamdy; David Grant; Gary Levy Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Annabel Blasi; Andrea Calvo; Verónica Prado; Enric Reverter; Juan Carlos Reverter; María Hernández-Tejero; Fátima Aziz; Alex Amoros; Andres Cardenas; Javier Fernández Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Aliaksei Pustavoitau; Maggie Lesley; Promise Ariyo; Asad Latif; April J Villamayor; Steven M Frank; Nicole Rizkalla; William Merritt; Andrew Cameron; Nabil Dagher; Benjamin Philosophe; Ahmet Gurakar; Allan Gottschalk Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 5.108