Blood utilization in revision versus first‐time cardiac surgery: an update in the era of patient blood management. Issue 1 (8th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hensley, Nadia B.; Kostibas, Megan P.; Yang, William W.; Crawford, Todd C.; Mandal, Kaushik; Gupta, Pranjal B.; Frank, Steven M.; Brown, Charles H.
• Is Part Of: Transfusion. Volume 58:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: 168
• Page End: 175
• Publication Date: 2017-10-08
• Subjects: Hematology -- Periodicals; Blood -- Transfusion -- Periodicals; Blood Group Antigens -- Periodicals; Blood Preservation -- Periodicals; Blood Transfusion -- Periodicals; 615
• DOI: 10.1111/trf.14361
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0041-1132

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: Relative to first‐time (primary) cardiac surgery, revision cardiac surgery is associated with increased transfusion requirements, but studies comparing these cohorts were performed before patient blood management (PBM) and blood conservation measures were commonplace. The current study was performed as an update to determine if this finding is still evident in the PBM era. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Primary and revision cardiac surgery cases were compared in a retrospective database analysis at a single tertiary care referral center. Two groups of patients were assessed: 1) those having isolated coronary artery bypass (CAB) or valve surgery and 2) all other cardiac surgeries. Intraoperative and whole hospital transfusion requirements were assessed for the four major blood components. RESULTS: Compared to the primary cardiac surgery patients, the revision surgery patients required approximately twofold more transfused units intraoperatively (p < 0.0001) and approximately two‐ to threefold more transfused units for the whole hospital stay (p < 0.0001). Intraoperative massive transfusion (>10 red blood cell [RBC] units) was substantially more frequent with revision versus primary cardiac surgery (2.6% vs. 0.1% [p < 0.0001] for isolated CAB or valve and 6.1% vs. 1.9% [p < 0.0001] for all other cardiac surgeries). Revision surgery was an independent risk factor for both moderate (6‐10 RBC units) and massive intraoperative transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: In the era of PBM, with restrictive transfusion strategies and a variety of methods for blood conservation, revision cardiac surgery patients continue to have substantially greater transfusion requirements relative to primary cardiac surgery patients. This difference in transfusion requirement was greater than what has been previously reported in the pre‐PBM era.