Evaluation of blood reservation and use for caesarean sections in a tertiary maternity unit in south western Nigeria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Haemorrhage from obstetric causes is the most common cause of maternal mortality in the developing world. Prevention of mortality from haemorrhage will necessarily involve prompt blood transfusions among other life saving measures. There are however limited stocks of fresh or stored blood in many health care facilities in Sub Saharan Africa. Caesarean section has been identified as a common indication for blood transfusion in obstetrics practice and its performance is often delayed by non availability of blood in our centre. An evaluation of blood reservation and use at caesarean sections in a tertiary maternity unit in Lagos, south western Nigeria should therefore assist in formulating the most rational blood transfusion policies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Case records of 327 patients who had elective and emergency caesarian sections at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital between 1^stOctober and 31^stDecember 2007 were reviewed. Data pertaining to age, parity, booking status, type and indication for Caesarean section, pre- and post-operative packed cell volume, blood loss at surgery, units of blood reserved in the blood bank, unit(s) of blood transfused and duration of hospital stay was extracted and the data analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 1056 deliveries out of which 327 (31%) were by Caesarean section. During the study period, a total of 654 units of blood were reserved in the blood bank and subsequently made available in theatre. Out of this number, only 89 (13.6%) were transfused to 41 patients. Amongst those transfused, twenty-six (54%) were booked and 31 (75.6%) had primary caesarian section. About 81% of those transfused had emergency caesarean section. The most common indication for surgery among those transfused were placenta praevia (9 patients with 21 units of blood) and cephalo-pelvic disproportion (8 patients with 13 units).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Even though a large number of units of blood was reserved and made available in the theatre at the time of operation, majority of the patients operated did not need blood transfusion. Provision of a mini- blood bank within the obstetric unit and careful patient categorization will ensure timely availability of blood for surgery without necessarily tying down stock in the central blood bank.</p

Methods of estimation of mitral valve regurgitation for the cardiac surgeon

Mitral valve regurgitation is a relatively common and important heart valve lesion in clinical practice and adequate assessment is fundamental to decision on management, repair or replacement. Disease localised to the posterior mitral valve leaflet or focal involvement of the anterior mitral valve leaflet is most amenable to mitral valve repair, whereas patients with extensive involvement of the anterior leaflet or incomplete closure of the valve are more suitable for valve replacement. Echocardiography is the recognized investigation of choice for heart valve disease evaluation and assessment. However, the technique is depended on operator experience and on patient's hemodynamic profile, and may not always give optimal diagnostic views of mitral valve dysfunction. Cardiac catheterization is related to common complications of an interventional procedure and needs a hemodynamic laboratory. Cardiac magnetic resonance (MRI) seems to be a useful tool which gives details about mitral valve anatomy, precise point of valve damage, as well as the quantity of regurgitation. Finally, despite of its higher cost, cardiac MRI using cine images with optimized spatial and temporal resolution can also resolve mitral valve leaflet structural motion, and can reliably estimate the grade of regurgitation

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients