Intraoperative transfusion practices in Europe

Transfusion of allogeneic blood influences outcome after surgery. Despite widespread availability of transfusion guidelines, transfusion practices might vary among physicians, departments, hospitals and countries. Our aim was to determine the amount of packed red blood cells (pRBC) and blood products transfused intraoperatively, and to describe factors determining transfusion throughout Europe. We did a prospective observational cohort study enrolling 5803 patients in 126 European centres that received at least one pRBC unit intraoperatively, during a continuous three month period in 2013. The overall intraoperative transfusion rate was 1.8%; 59% of transfusions were at least partially initiated as a result of a physiological transfusion trigger- mostly because of hypotension (55.4%) and/or tachycardia (30.7%). Haemoglobin (Hb)- based transfusion trigger alone initiated only 8.5% of transfusions. The Hb concentration [mean (sd)] just before transfusion was 8.1 (1.7) g dl and increased to 9.8 (1.8) g dl after transfusion. The mean number of intraoperatively transfused pRBC units was 2.5 (2.7) units (median 2). Although European Society of Anaesthesiology transfusion guidelines are moderately implemented in Europe with respect to Hb threshold for transfusion (7-9 g dl), there is still an urgent need for further educational efforts that focus on the number of pRBC units to be transfused at this threshold

Intraoperative transfusion practices in Europe

© 2016 The Author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia.Background: Transfusion of allogeneic blood influences outcome after surgery. Despite widespread availability of transfusion guidelines, transfusion practices might vary among physicians, departments, hospitals and countries. Our aim was to determine the amount of packed red blood cells (pRBC) and blood products transfused intraoperatively, and to describe factors determining transfusion throughout Europe. Methods: We did a prospective observational cohort study enrolling 5803 patients in 126 European centres that received at least one pRBC unit intraoperatively, during a continuous three month period in 2013. Results: The overall intraoperative transfusion rate was 1.8%; 59% of transfusions were at least partially initiated as a result of a physiological transfusion trigger- mostly because of hypotension (55.4%) and/or tachycardia (30.7%). Haemoglobin (Hb)- based transfusion trigger alone initiated only 8.5% of transfusions. The Hb concentration [mean (sd)] just before transfusion was 8.1 (1.7) g dl-1 and increased to 9.8 (1.8) g dl-1 after transfusion. The mean number of intraoperatively transfused pRBC units was 2.5 (2.7) units (median 2). Conclusions: Although European Society of Anaesthesiology transfusion guidelines are moderately implemented in Europe with respect to Hb threshold for transfusion (7-9 g dl-1), there is still an urgent need for further educational efforts that focus on the number of pRBC units to be transfused at this threshold

Intraoperative transfusion practices and perioperative outcome in the European elderly: A secondary analysis of the observational ETPOS study

The demographic development suggests a dramatic growth in the number of elderly patients undergoing surgery in Europe. Most red blood cell transfusions (RBCT) are administered to older people, but little is known about perioperative transfusion practices in this population. In this secondary analysis of the prospective observational multicentre European Transfusion Practice and Outcome Study (ETPOS), we specifically evaluated intraoperative transfusion practices and the related outcomes of 3149 patients aged 65 years and older. Enrolled patients underwent elective surgery in 123 European hospitals, received at least one RBCT intraoperatively and were followed up for 30 days maximum. The mean haemoglobin value at the beginning of surgery was 108 (21) g/l, 84 (15) g/l before transfusion and 101 (16) g/l at the end of surgery. A median of 2 [1–2] units of RBCT were administered. Mostly, more than one transfusion trigger was present, with physiological triggers being preeminent. We revealed a descriptive association between each intraoperatively administered RBCT and mortality and discharge respectively, within the first 10 postoperative days but not thereafter. In our unadjusted model the hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.08–1.15) and the HR for discharge was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74–0.83). After adjustment for several variables, such as age, preoperative haemoglobin and blood loss, the HR for mortality was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05–1.15) and HR for discharge was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78–0.87). Preoperative anaemia in European elderly surgical patients is undertreated. Various triggers seem to support the decision for RBCT. A closer monitoring of elderly patients receiving intraoperative RBCT for the first 10 postoperative days might be justifiable. Further research on the causal relationship between RBCT and outcomes and on optimal transfusion strategies in the elderly population is warranted. A thorough analysis of different time periods within the first 30 postoperative days is recommended

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline