Cost‐effectiveness comparison of routine transfusion with restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies for surgical patients in China. Issue 7 (1st August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yu, Xiaochu; Wang, Zixing; Wang, Yipeng; Huang, Yuguang; Xin, Shijie; Sun, Hong; Zhang, Xu; Wang, Yaolei; Han, Wei; Xue, Fang; Wang, Lei; Hu, Yaoda; Xu, Mei; Li, Li; He, Jiqun; Jiang, Jingmei
• Is Part Of: Vox sanguinis. Volume 114:Issue 7(2019)
• Page Start: 721
• Page End: 739
• Publication Date: 2019-08-01
• Subjects: transfusion -- haemoglobin threshold -- surgery -- cost‐effectiveness; Blood -- Periodicals; Blood -- Transfusion -- Periodicals; Immunohematology -- Periodicals; Immunopathology -- Periodicals; 615.39
• DOI: 10.1111/vox.12817
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0042-9007

Abstract

Abstract : Background and Objectives: A health industry standard recommending restrictive transfusion is to be in effect in China in April 2019. We aim to explore its potential economic and clinical impacts among surgical patients. Materials and Methods: A decision tree model was applied to compare cost‐effectiveness of current routine transfusion in China, a restrictive (transfusion at Hb < 8 g/dl or ischaemic symptoms) and a liberal (transfusion at Hb < 10 g/dl) strategy. Parameters were estimated from empirical data of 25 227 surgical inpatients aged ≥30 years in a multicenter study and supplemented by meta‐analysis when necessary. Results are shown for cardio‐cerebral‐vascular (CCV) surgery and non‐CCV (orthopaedics, general, thoracic) surgery separately. Results: Per 10 000 patients in routine, restrictive, liberal transfusion scenarios, total spending (transfusion and length of stay related) was 7·67, 7·58 and 9·39 million CNY (1 CNY × 0.157 = 1 US dollar) for CCV surgery and 6·35, 6·70 and 8·09 million CNY for non‐CCV surgery; infectious and severe complications numbered 354, 290, and 290 (CCV) and 315, 286, and 330 (non‐CCV), respectively. Acceptability curves showed high probabilities for restrictive strategy to be cost‐effective across a wide range of willingness‐to‐pay values. Such findings were mostly consistent in sensitivity and subgroup analyses except for patients with cardiac problems. Conclusion: We showed strong rationale, succeeding previous findings only in cardiac or joint procedures, to comply with the new standard as restrictive transfusion has high potential to save blood, secure safety, and is cost‐effective for a wide spectrum of surgical patients. Experiences should be further summarized to pave the way towards individualized transfusion.