Impact of intraoperative blood salvage and autologous transfusion during liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Perioperative Blood Transfusions and Cancer Progression: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the most recent evidence about known controversies on the effect of perioperative transfusion on cancer progression.

RECENT FINDINGS

Laboratory evidence suggests that transfusion-related immunomodulation can be modified by blood management and storage practices, but it is likely of less intensity than the effect of the surgical stress response. Clinical evidence has questioned the independent effect of blood transfusion on cancer progression for some cancers but supported it for others. Despite major changes in surgery and anesthesia, cancer surgery remains a major player in perioperative blood product utilization. Prospective data is still required to strengthen or refute existing associations. Transfusion-related immunomodulation in cancer surgery is well-documented, but the extent to which it affects cancer progression is unclear. Associations between transfusion and cancer progression are disease-specific. Increasing evidence shows autologous blood transfusion may be safe in cancer surgery.

Impact of blood salvage therapy during oncologic liver surgeries on allogenic transfusion events, survival, and recurrence: an ambidirectional cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The use of autologous blood transfusions in oncologic surgeries is somewhat controversial due to the potential risk of disease dissemination through the salvage process. On the other hand, autologous blood transfusion can prevent the potential negative effects of allogenic blood transfusions and reduce use of valuable resources.

METHODS

This study included 106 adult patients who underwent oncologic liver surgery at our institution between December 2015 and June 2019. The patients were divided into two groups: the Cell Saver group (operated between January 2018 and June 2019) and the control group (operated between December 2015 and December 2017). The Cell Saver device was present in the operating room for the Cell Saver group, and blood was retransfused if a certain amount of blood loss occurred. Data analysis focused on outcomes such as blood transfusion requirements, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, hemoglobin levels, hospital stay, and complications. Patient records provided relevant information on demographics, surgery details, pathology, and outcomes for both groups.

RESULTS

Autologous blood transfusion was found to reduce the amount of blood units needed (4.0 units (control group) versus 0.4 units (Cell Saver group) P =0.029. Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference for both overall survival 471.6 days (Cell Saver group) versus 468.3 days (control group) ( P =0.219) and 488.9 days (Cell Saver group) versus 487.2 days (control group) ( P =0.993) and disease-free survival ( P =0.553) and ( P =0.735) for primary hepatic tumors and hepatic metastasis respectively between the Cell Saver and control groups. Overall survival regardless of the type of tumor was similar to the control group (485.4 days vs. 481.9 days) ( P =0.503). Survival was significantly lower for minor hepatectomies (516.0 days vs. 517.4 days) ( P =0.050) in the Cell Saver group, major hepatectomies showed no difference in overall survival (470.2 days vs. 466.4 days) ( P =0.868). No impact on disease recurrence was found between patients who received autologous blood transfusions versus those who did not.

CONCLUSION

The use of Cell Saver should not be avoided in oncologic surgeries of the liver. Use of Cell Saver for major hepatectomies might be more beneficial as OS was significantly lower for the Cell Saver group for patients who underwent minor hepactomies. Further research is needed to explain this conflicting result. Nonetheless, the use of Cell Saver in autologous blood transfusions can reduce the use of valuable resources and the risks associated with allogenic blood transfusions.

Efficacy of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion in living-donor liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) may be associated with massive blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. Intraoperative blood salvage autotransfusion (IBSA) can reduce the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of blood salvage in LT.

METHODS

Among 355 adult patients who underwent elective living-donor LT between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, 59 recipients without advanced hepatocellular carcinoma received IBSA using Cell Saver (CS group). Based on sex, age, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, preoperative laboratory results, and other factors, 118 of the 296 recipients who did not undergo IBSA were matched using propensity score (non-CS group). The primary outcome was the amount of intraoperative allogenic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Comparisons were made between the two groups regarding the amount of other blood components transfused and postoperative laboratory findings.

RESULTS

The transfused allogeneic RBC for the CS group was significantly lower than that of the non-CS group (1,506.0 vs. 1,957.5 ml, P = 0.026). No significant differences in the transfused total fresh frozen plasma, platelets, cryoprecipitate, and estimated blood loss were observed between the two groups. The postoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion was significantly lower in the CS group than in the non-CS group (1,500.0 vs. 2,100.0 ml, P = 0.039). No significant differences in postoperative laboratory findings were observed at postoperative day 1 and discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Using IBSA during LT can effectively reduce the need for perioperative allogeneic blood transfusions without causing subsequent coagulopathy.

2023 Clinical Update in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation continues to provide life-saving treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. Advances in the field of transplant anesthesia continue to support the care of more complex patients. The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been described in critical care settings and cardiac surgery but may be a valuable option for specific conditions for patients undergoing liver transplantation. Changes to the allocation process for liver grafts now focus on acuity circles to reduce regional disparities. As the number of life-saving transplant surgeries increases, so does the need for specialty knowledge in the anesthetic considerations of these procedures. The specialty of transplant anesthesia continues to grow and develop to meet the demands of complex patients and the increased number of transplants performed. Liver transplantation can be a resource-demanding procedure, and predicting the need for massive transfusion can aid in planning and preparing for significant blood loss.

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION FOR ACUTE-ON-CHRONIC LIVER FAILURE

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is the only treatment that can provide long-term survival for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). Although several studies identify prognostic factors for patients in ACLF who do not undergo LT, there is scarce literature about prognostic factors after LT in this population.

AIM

Evaluate outcomes of ACLF patients undergoing LT, studying prognostic factors related to 1-year and 90 days post-LT.

METHODS

Patients with ACLF undergoing LT between January 2005 and April 2021 were included. Variables such as chronic liver failure consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF values and ACLF grades were compared with the outcomes.

RESULTS

The ACLF survival of patients (n=25) post-LT at 90 days, 1, 3, 5 and 7 years, was 80, 76, 59.5, 54.1 and 54.1% versus 86.3, 79.4, 72.6, 66.5 and 61.2% for patients undergoing LT for other indications (n=344), (p=0.525). There was no statistical difference for mortality at 01 year and 90 days among patients with the three ACLF grades (ACLF-1 vs. ACLF-2 vs. ACLF-3) undergoing LT, as well as when compared to non-ACLF patients. CLIF-C ACLF score was not related to death outcomes. None of the other studied variables proved to be independent predictors of mortality at 90 days, 1 year, or overall.

CONCLUSIONS

LT conferred long-term survival to most transplant patients. None of the studied variables proved to be a prognostic factor associated with post-LT survival outcomes for patients with ACLF. Additional studies are recommended to clarify the prognostic factors of post-LT survival in patients with ACLF.

The science…or not behind deferrals of blood donors with a history of cancer

BACKGROUND

In the United States (US), each blood center's medical director sets policy for donors with a cancer history.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A subgroup of America's Blood Centers' (ABC) Scientific, Medical, and Technical Committee developed a survey to measure the determination of eligibility, policies for deferral and/or lookback when a donor reports a current diagnosis or history of cancer. A 31-question survey was sent to 47 ABC blood centers in North America via email. Survey results were compiled and literature evaluating the risk of cancer transmission by transfusion was reviewed.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 37 centers (79%). Donors with a history of carcinoma or sarcoma who had completed treatment were accepted at 73% of centers with no further deferral. Donors with a history of leukemia or lymphoma were permanently deferred at 76% of centers. Donors with a myelodysplastic or myeloproliferative syndrome were deferred permanently at 86% of centers. Handling of donors with high white cell counts varied. Donors with cancer not in active treatment (i.e., prostate cancer) were subject to various deferrals. Center response to post-donation reports of cancer vary widely. Literature review yielded no evidence of transfusion-transmitted cancer.

CONCLUSION

Cancer deferral policies vary widely among blood centers, and are not generally based on evidence, but on some aspect of the precautionary principle. As the donor population ages and so becomes more at risk of cancer, this approach may further reduce the available donor pool.

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022

BACKGROUND

Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%.

DISCUSSION

Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

Should Cell Salvage Be Used in Liver Resection and Transplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of intraoperative blood cell salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) use on red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and postoperative outcomes in liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative RBC transfusions are common in liver surgery and associated with increased morbidity. IBSA can be utilized to minimize allogeneic transfusion. A theoretical risk of cancer dissemination has limited IBSA adoption in oncologic surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2021. All studies comparing IBSA use with control in liver surgery were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently, in duplicate. The primary outcome was intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion (proportion of patients and volume of blood transfused). Core secondary outcomes included: overall survival and disease-free survival, transfusion-related complications, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one observational studies were included (16 transplant, 5 resection, n=3433 patients). Seventeen studies incorporated oncologic indications. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic RBC transfusion [mean difference -1.81, 95% confidence interval (-3.22, -0.40), P =0.01, I 2 =86%, very-low certainty]. Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. No significant difference existed in overall survival or disease-free survival in liver transplant [hazard ratio (HR)=1.12 (0.75, 1.68), P =0.59, I 2 =0%; HR=0.93 (0.57, 1.48), P =0.75, I 2 =0%] and liver resection [HR=0.69 (0.45, 1.05), P =0.08, I 2 =0%; HR=0.93 (0.59, 1.45), P =0.74, I 2 =0%].

CONCLUSION

IBSA may reduce intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion without compromising oncologic outcomes. The current evidence base is limited in size and quality, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.

THE USE OF AUTOLOGOUS BLOOD TRANSFUSION IN DIGESTIVE TRACT SURGERY: A LITERATURE REVIEW

BACKGROUND

The use of autologous blood transfusion in digestive tract surgeries, whether after preoperative blood collection or intraoperative blood salvage, is an alternative to allogeneic blood, which brings with it certain risks and shortage, due to the lack of donors. Studies have shown lower mortality and longer survival associated with autologous blood, however the theoretical possibility of spreading metastatic disease is still one of the limiting factors of its use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the application of autologous transfusion in digestive tract surgeries, noting the benefits, damages and effects on the spread of metastatic disease.

METHODS

This is an integrative review of the literature available in the PubMed, Virtual Health Library and SciELO databases, by searching for "Autologous Blood Transfusion AND Gastrointestinal Surgical Procedures". Observational and experimental studies and guidelines published in the last five years in Portuguese, English or Spanish were included.

RESULTS

Not all patients benefit from blood collection before elective procedures, with the time of surgery and hemoglobin levels some of the factors that may indicate the need for preoperative storage. Regarding the intraoperative salvaged blood, it was observed that there is no increased risk of tumor recurrence, but the importance of using leukocyte filters and blood irradiation is highlighted. There was no consensus among the studies whether there is a maintenance or reduction of complication rates compared to allogeneic blood. The cost related to the use of autologous blood may be higher, and the less stringent selection criteria prevent it from being added to the general donation pool.

CONCLUSION

There were no objective and concordant answers among the studies, but the strong evidence of less recurrence of digestive tumors, the possibility of changes in morbidity and mortality, and the reduction of costs with patients suggest that the practice of autologous blood transfusion should be encouraged in digestive tract surgeries. It is necessary to note if the deleterious effects would stand out amidst the possible benefits to the patient and to health care systems.

Clinical prognosis of intraoperative blood salvage autotransfusion in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Intraoperative blood salvage autotransfusion(IBSA) has been widely used in a variety of surgeries, but the use of IBSA in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) is controversial. Numerous studies have reported that IBSA used during LT for HCC is not associated with adverse oncologic outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the clinical prognosis of IBSA for patients with H+CC undergoing LT.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles describing IBSA in HCC patients undergoing LT from the date of inception until May 1, 2022, and a meta-analysis was performed. Study heterogeneity was assessed by I² test. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s test.

Results

12 studies enrolling a total of 2253 cases (1374 IBSA and 879 non-IBSA cases) are included in this meta-analysis. The recurrence rate(RR) at 5-year(OR=0.75; 95%CI, 0.59-0.95; P=0.02) and 7-year(OR=0.65; 95%CI, 0.55-0.97; P=0.03) in the IBSA group is slightly lower than non-IBSA group. There are no significant differences in the 1-year RR(OR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.06; P=0.10), 3-years RR (OR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.01; P=0.06),1-year overall survival outcome(OS) (OR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.28; P=0.57), 3-year OS(OR=1.16; 95% CI, 0.83-1.62; P=0.38), 5-year OS(OR=1.04; 95% CI, 0.76-1.40; P=0.82),1-year disease-free survival rate(DFS) (OR=0.80; 95%CI, 0.49-1.30; P=0.36), 3-year DFS(OR=0.99; 95%CI, 0.64-1.55; P=0.98), and 5-year DFS(OR=0.88; 95%CI, 0.60-1.28; P=0.50). Subgroup analysis shows a difference in the use of leukocyte depletion filters group of 5-year RR(OR=0.73; 95%CI, 0.55-0.96; P=0.03). No significant differences are found in other subgroups.

Conclusions

IBSA provides comparable survival outcomes relative to allogeneic blood transfusion and does not increase the tumor recurrence for HCC patients after LT.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022295479.

Effect of Autotransfusion in HCC Surgery on Survival and Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The chronic blood shortage has forced clinicians to seek alternatives to allogeneic blood transfusions during surgery. Due to anatomic uniqueness resulting in a vast vasculature, liver surgery can lead to significant blood loss, and an estimated 30% of patients require blood transfusions in major hepatectomy. Allogeneic transfusion harbors the risk of an immunologic reaction. However, the hesitation to reinfuse a patient's own blood during cancer surgery is reinforced by the potentiality of reintroducing and disseminating tumor cells into an individual undergoing curative treatment. Two methods of autotransfusions are common: autotransfusion after preoperative blood donation and intraoperative blood salvage (IBS). We aim to investigate the effect of autotransfusion on recurrence and survival rates of patients undergoing surgery for HCC.

METHODS

The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO prior to data extraction. MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for publications on liver surgery and blood salvage (autologous transfusion or intraoperative blood salvage). Comparative studies were included. Outcomes focused on long-term oncologic status and mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) estimated outcomes with a fixed-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE. Separate analyses were performed for liver transplantation and hepatectomies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the analysis (nine on transplantation and six on hepatectomies), and they comprised 2052 patients. Overall survival was comparable between patients who received intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) or not for liver transplantation (HR 1.13, 95% CI [0.89, 1.42] p = 0.31). Disease-free survival also was comparable (HR 0.97, 95% CI [0.76, 1.24], p = 0.83). Autotransfusion after prior donation was predominantly used in hepatectomy. Patients who received autotransfusion had a significantly better overall survival than the control (HR 0.71, 95% CI [0.58, 0.88], p = 0.002). Disease-free survival was also significantly higher in patients with autotransfusion (HR 0.88, 95% CI [0.80, 0.96], p = 0.005). Although overall, the certainty of evidence is low and included studies exhibited methodological heterogeneity, the heterogeneity of outcomes was low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Autotransfusion, including intraoperative blood salvage, does not adversely affect the overall or disease-free survival of patients with HCC undergoing resection or transplantation. The results of this meta-analysis justify a randomized-controlled trial regarding the feasibility and potential benefits of autotransfusion in HCC surgery.

Safety of Intraoperative Blood Salvage During Liver Transplantation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Objective:

The effects of intraoperative blood salvage (IBS) on time to tumor recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation were assessed to evaluate the safety of IBS.

Background:

IBS is highly effective to reduce the use of allogeneic blood transfusion. However, the safety of IBS during liver transplantation for patients with HCC is questioned due to fear of disseminating malignant cells.

Methods:

Comprehensive searches through June 2021 were performed in 8 databases. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Robins-I tool. Meta-analysis with the generic inverse variance method was performed to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival, HCC recurrence and overall survival.

Results:

Nine studies were included (n=1997, IBS n=1200, no-IBS n=797). Use of IBS during liver transplantation was not associated with impaired disease-free survival [HR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.66–1.24, P=0.53, IBS n=394, no-IBS n=329], not associated with increased HCC recurrence (HR=0.83, 95% CI=0.57–1.23, P=0.36, IBS n=537, no-IBS n=382) and not associated with impaired overall survival (HR=1.04, 95% CI=0.79–1.37, P=0.76, IBS n=495, no-IBS n=356).

Conclusions:

Based on available observational data, use of IBS during liver transplantation in patients with HCC does not result in impaired disease-free survival, increased HCC recurrence or impaired overall survival. Therefore, use of IBS during liver transplantation for HCC patients is a safe procedure.

Safety of Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Cancer Surgery: An Updated Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature

Background

Allogeneic blood transfusions in oncologic surgery are associated with increased recurrence and mortality. Adverse effects on outcome could be reduced or avoided by using intraoperative autologous blood cell salvage (IOCS). However, there are concerns regarding the safety of the autologous IOCS blood. Previous meta-analyses from 2012 and 2020 did not identify increased risk of cancer recurrence after using autologous IOCS blood. The objective of this review was to reassess a greater number of IOCS-treated patients to present an updated and more robust analysis of the current literature.

Methods

This systematic review includes full-text articles listed in PubMed, Cochrane, Cochrane Reviews, and Web of Science. We analyzed publications that discussed cell salvage or autotransfusion combined with the following outcomes: cancer recurrence, mortality, survival, allogeneic transfusion rate and requirements, length of hospital stay (LOS). To rate the strength of evidence, a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) of the underlying evidence was applied.

Results

In the updated meta-analysis, 7 further observational studies were added to the original 27 observational studies included in the former 2020 analysis. Studies compared either unfiltered (n = 2,311) or filtered (n = 850) IOCS (total n = 3,161) versus non-IOCS use (n = 5,342). Control patients were either treated with autologous predonated blood (n = 484), with allogeneic transfusion (n = 4,113), or did not receive a blood transfusion (n = 745). However, the current literature still contains only observational studies on these topics, and the strength of evidence remains low. The risk of cancer recurrence was reduced in recipients of autologous salvaged blood with or without LDF (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.90) compared to nontransfused patients or patients with allogeneic transfusion. There was no difference in mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71-1.27) and LOS (mean difference -0.07 days, 95% CI: -0.63 to 0.48) between patients treated with IOCS blood or those in whom IOCS was not used. Due to high heterogeneity, transfusion rates or volumes could not be analyzed.

Conclusion

Randomized controlled trials comparing mortality and cancer recurrence rate of IOCS with or without LDF filtration versus allogeneic blood transfusion were not found. Outcome was similar or better in patients receiving IOCS during cancer surgery compared to patients with allogeneic blood transfusion or nontransfused patients.

Cell Salvage in Oncological Surgery, Peripartum Haemorrhage and Trauma

Oncological surgery, obstetric haemorrhage and severe trauma are the most challenging conditions for establishing clinical recommendations for the use of cell salvage. When the likelihood of allogeneic transfusion is high, the intraoperative use of this blood-saving technique would be justified, but specific patient selection criteria are needed. The main concerns in the case of oncological surgery are the reinfusion of tumour cells, thereby increasing the risk of metastasis. This threat could be minimized, which may help to rationalize its indication. In severe peripartum haemorrhage, cell salvage has not proven cost-effective, damage control techniques have been developed, and, given the risk of fetomaternal alloimmunization and amniotic fluid embolism, it is increasingly out of use. In trauma, bleeding may originate from multiple sites, coagulopathy may develop, and it should be evaluated whether re-transfusion of autologous blood collected from uncontaminated organ cavities would be feasible. General safety measures include washing recovered blood and its passage through leukocyte depletion filters. To date, no well-defined indications for cell salvage have been established for these pathologies, but with accurate case selection and selective implementation, it could become safe and effective. Randomized clinical trials are urgently needed.