Bloodless Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology

Adverse post-operative outcomes in Jehovah's witnesses with gynecologic cancer within 30 days of surgery: A single institution review of 36 cases

Rates of blood transfusion are reported as high as 32% in women undergoing major gynecologic cancer surgery. Therefore, care of the gynecologic oncology patient who refuses blood products, such as Jehovah's witnesses, can pose a unique challenge. The objective of this study was to determine rate of adverse post-operative outcomes within 30 days of surgery in Jehovah's witnesses with gynecologic cancer. This was a retrospective cohort study of Jehovah's witnesses undergoing laparotomy or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic cancer at a single institution. Data for post-adverse complications within 30 days of surgery were recorded. In total, 36 patients were included with a median age of 58.5 years (32–85 years). The majority had endometrial adenocarcinoma (n = 23; 63.9%) or epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancer (EOC) (n = 8; 22.2%). 61.1% (n = 22) of patients underwent laparotomy and 38.9% (n = 14) had MIS procedures. 31.8% of laparotomies (n = 7) were terminated prematurely due to surgeon concern for ongoing blood loss. In patients with advanced stage EOC, the rate of suboptimal cytoreduction (> 1 cm) was 50%. In the laparotomy cohort, there were four (18.2%) ICU admissions and two (9.1%) mortalities. The time to adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation was 45.5 days (31–64) for laparotomy compared to 35.0 days (12–64) for MIS. While the majority of patients (97.2%) were unwilling to accept packed red blood cells, over one third (38.9%) were agreeable to autologous blood transfusion. Additionally, five (13.9%) patients were accepting of fresh frozen plasma, six (16.7%) patients were agreeable to cryoprecipitate and seven (19.4%) patients were willing to accept platelet transfusions. There is a high rate of postoperative adverse outcomes among Jehovah's witnesses undergoing laparotomy for gynecologic malignancy compared. Acceptance of blood products is low among Jehovah's witnesses, even in the setting of major oncologic surgery.

•

Rate of adverse perioperative outcomes is high in Jehovah's witnesses.

•

Laparotomy is associated with higher mortality and ICU admission.

•

Acceptance of blood products is low in Jehovah's witnesses with gynecologic cancer.

•

Patients should be counseled on risks of blood product refusal prior to surgery.

Responses of advanced directives by Jehovah's Witnesses on a gynecologic oncology service

Objectives

To review the responses of advance directives signed by Jehovah’s Witness patients prior to undergoing surgery at a gynecologic oncology service.

Study design

A retrospective chart review of gynecologic oncology patients undergoing surgery at a bloodless surgery center from 1998–2007 was conducted. Demographic, pathologic, and clinical data were recorded. The proportion of patients who accepted and refused various blood-derived products was determined and was compared to previously published results from a similar study of labor and delivery unit patients.

Results

No gynecologic oncology patients agreed to accept transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma under any circumstance, whereas 9.8% of pregnant patients accepted transfusion (P=0.0385). However, 98% of gynecologic oncology patients agreed to accept some blood products, including fractions such as albumin, immunoglobulins, and clotting factors, while only 39% of pregnant patients agreed (P<0.0001). In addition, all gynecologic oncology patients (100%) accepted intraoperative hemodilution, compared to 55% of pregnant patients (P<0.0001).

Conclusion

Our results confirm the commonly held belief that the majority of Jehovah’s Witness patients refuse to accept major blood components. However, Jehovah’s Witness patients at a gynecologic oncology service will accept a variety of blood-derived products (minor fractions) and interventions designed to optimize outcomes when undergoing transfusion-free surgery. Patients presenting to a gynecologic oncology service respond differently to advanced directives related to bloodless surgery, as compared to patients from an obstetrical service.

Impact of more restrictive blood transfusion strategies on clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is accumulating evidence that restricting blood transfusions improves outcomes, with newer trials showing greater benefit from more restrictive strategies. We systematically evaluated the impact of various transfusion triggers on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched from 1966 to April 2013 to find randomized trials evaluating a restrictive hemoglobin transfusion trigger of <7 g/dL, compared with a more liberal trigger. Two investigators independently extracted data from the trials. Outcomes evaluated included mortality, acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary edema, infections, rebleeding, number of patients transfused, and units of blood transfused per patient. Extracted data also included information on study setting, design, participant characteristics, and risk for bias of the included trials. A secondary analysis evaluated trials using less restrictive transfusion triggers, and a systematic review of observational studies evaluated more restrictive triggers.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, pooled results from 3 trials with 2364 participants showed that a restrictive hemoglobin transfusion trigger of <7 g/dL resulted in reduced in-hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.74; confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.92), total mortality (RR, 0.80; CI, 0.65-0.98), rebleeding (RR, 0.64; CI, 0.45-0.90), acute coronary syndrome (RR, 0.44; CI, 0.22-0.89), pulmonary edema (RR, 0.48; CI, 0.33-0.72), and bacterial infections (RR, 0.86; CI, 0.73-1.00), compared with a more liberal strategy. The number needed to treat with a restrictive strategy to prevent 1 death was 33. Pooled data from randomized trials with less restrictive transfusion strategies showed no significant effect on outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with critical illness or bleed, restricting blood transfusions by using a hemoglobin trigger of <7 g/dL significantly reduces cardiac events, rebleeding, bacterial infections, and total mortality. A less restrictive transfusion strategy was not effective.

In vitro analysis of cell salvage blood collection with a laparoscopic suction device

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether cell salvage blood collection with a laparoscopic suction device is inferior to use of a traditional Yankauer suction device.

DESIGN

Prospective, in vitro study.

SETTING

Academic teaching hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

Individual units of donated packed red blood cells were diluted with normal saline solution to a hematocrit level of 21%. The blood was divided into 2 equal parts and then suctioned with either a laparoscopic suction device or a Yankauer plastic suction catheter tip connected to double-lumen cell salvage tubing with a diluted heparin drip and a vacuum pressure of 100 mm Hg. Collected blood was processed with a cell salvage device. Red blood cell volume was calculated by multiplying the hematocrit level by the total volume of blood product at the time of testing. Mean hemolysis indexes were compared between the laparoscopic and Yankauer method of blood collection by use of a 2-sample t test. Assuming a clinically acceptable limit of loss to be 7%, percent loss in red blood cell volume was tested with a 95% one-sided confidence limit to assess noninferiority.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The mean hemolysis index was 43.33 with laparoscopic suction method and 34.67 with the Yankauer suction method. The mean difference was 8.67 and was not considered significant (p = .074). The percent loss in red blood cell volume after collection and cell salvage processing was 33.2% with the laparoscopic suction method and 29.57% with the Yankauer method. The mean difference was 3.63% and was within the acceptable 7% loss limit for noninferiority (p = .0278).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic blood collection is not inferior to the standard Yankauer method for cell salvage collection.

Should intraoperative cell-salvaged blood be used in patients with suspected or known malignancy?

PURPOSE

Intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) is used as an alternative to allogeneic blood transfusion in an attempt to avoid or minimize the risks associated with allogeneic blood. Intraoperative cell salvage is generally avoided in surgeries where malignancy is confirmed or suspected due to concern for potential metastasis or cancer recurrence. The application of post-processing methods for ICS is hypothesized to eliminate this potential risk. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the in vitro experimental evidence as it pertains to the removal of tumour cells from ICS blood and to review the clinical studies where ICS blood has been used in patients with malignancy.

SOURCE

A search of the English literature for relevant articles published from 1973 to 2012 was undertaken using MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Bibliographies were cross-referenced to locate further studies.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Leukoreduction filters are an effective method for removal of malignant cells from ICS blood. Small non-randomized clinical studies to date do not show evidence of an increased rate of metastasis or cancer recurrence. Although a theoretical risk of disease recurrence persists, the decision to use autologous ICS blood must be weighed against the known risks of allogeneic blood transfusion.

CONCLUSION

Transfusion of autologous blood harvested via ICS should be considered a viable option for reduction or avoidance of allogeneic product during many oncologic surgeries and may be a lifesaving option for those patients who refuse allogeneic blood products.