Age of blood and adverse outcomes in a maternity population

BACKGROUND In recent times there has been debate around whether longer storage time of blood is associated with increased rates of adverse outcomes following transfusion. It is unclear whether results focused on cardiac or critically ill patients apply to a maternity population. This study investigates whether older blood is associated with increased morbidity and readmission in women undergoing obstetric transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Women giving birth in hospitals in New South Wales, Australia between July 2006‐December 2010 were included in the study population if they had received between 1‐4 red cell units during the birth admission. Information on women’s characteristics, transfusions and outcomes were obtained from 5 routinely collected datasets including blood collection, birth and hospitalisation data. Generalised propensity score methods were used to determine the effect of age of blood on rates of severe morbidity and readmission, independent of confounding factors. RESULTS Transfusion data were available for 2990 women, with a median age of blood transfused of 20 days (interquartile range 14,27 days). There were no differences in the age of blood transfused between women with and without severe morbidity (21 (14,28) vs 22 (15,30) days), and in women readmitted or not (22 (14,28) vs 22 (16,30) days). After considering potential confounding factors, no relationship was found between the age of blood transfused and rates of severe morbidity and readmission. CONCLUSION Among women receiving low volume transfusions during a birth admission, there was no evidence of increased rates of adverse outcomes following transfusion with older blood.NHMRC, Australian Red Cross, NSW Clinical Excellence Commission, AR

Investigating Obstetric Blood Transfusion Practice in New South Wales (NSW)

Aims to investigate obstetric blood transfusion practice at maternity hospitals in NSW with a range of geographical locations, clinical settings and obstetric transfusion rates including the antepartum use of intravenous (IV) iron and postpartum use of single unit red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. Methods A qualitative research study using semi-structured interviews was conducted. Nine maternity hospitals were chosen to cover a range of clinical settings and obstetric transfusion rates in NSW. Interviews were conducted in person with haematologists, obstetricians and midwives. Results There were 5 high-transfusing and 4 low-transfusing hospitals. 125 interviews were conducted, 61 with doctors: 42 with obstetric training and 19 with haematology training. High-transfusing hospitals were more likely to be rural or geographically isolated, have fewer staff numbers, smaller blood inventories and less stringent blood product regulation. Hospital/pharmaceutical, clinician and patient factors influenced the decision to use IV iron. Clinician-based and external factors influenced single unit transfusion use. Most doctors with obstetric training (54%) would initiate transfusion with two RBC units. Conclusion Hospital, clinician and patient-level factors influenced obstetric transfusion practice. Clinical context, resource availability, clinician knowledge and experience, and perceptions of utility of specific interventions were important. The findings have implications for clinician education, blood product provision and inventory management

Investigating Obstetric Blood Transfusion Practice in New South Wales (NSW)

Aims to investigate obstetric blood transfusion practice at maternity hospitals in NSW with a range of geographical locations, clinical settings and obstetric transfusion rates including the antepartum use of intravenous (IV) iron and postpartum use of single unit red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. Methods A qualitative research study using semi-structured interviews was conducted. Nine maternity hospitals were chosen to cover a range of clinical settings and obstetric transfusion rates in NSW. Interviews were conducted in person with haematologists, obstetricians and midwives. Results There were 5 high-transfusing and 4 low-transfusing hospitals. 125 interviews were conducted, 61 with doctors: 42 with obstetric training and 19 with haematology training. High-transfusing hospitals were more likely to be rural or geographically isolated, have fewer staff numbers, smaller blood inventories and less stringent blood product regulation. Hospital/pharmaceutical, clinician and patient factors influenced the decision to use IV iron. Clinician-based and external factors influenced single unit transfusion use. Most doctors with obstetric training (54%) would initiate transfusion with two RBC units. Conclusion Hospital, clinician and patient-level factors influenced obstetric transfusion practice. Clinical context, resource availability, clinician knowledge and experience, and perceptions of utility of specific interventions were important. The findings have implications for clinician education, blood product provision and inventory management

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society