Patient Blood Management in adults and children: what have we achieved, and what still needs to be addressed?

Massive Hemorrhage Protocol adoption and standardization with a provincial toolkit: a follow-up survey of Ontario hospitals

PURPOSE

Massive Hemorrhage Protocols improve outcomes for adults with severe hemorrhage, yet only 65% of Ontario hospitals had implemented one by 2018. In response, a Massive Hemorrhage Protocol toolkit was developed and disseminated province-wide in 2021. This study compares Massive Hemorrhage Protocol adoption and content in Ontario hospitals in 2023 versus 2018 using a pre- and post-toolkit rollout survey.

METHODS

A 98-question survey was emailed to transfusion medicine laboratory directors or their delegate at 159 hospitals in 2023, 2 years after a provincial Massive Hemorrhage Protocol toolkit rollout that included a 1-day virtual symposium. Results were compared with the 2018 survey containing 82 identical core questions using Chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum nonparametric tests for quantitative data, and content analysis for qualitative data.

RESULTS

The 2023 survey achieved a 100% response rate (n = 159); most respondents (n = 156) were transfusion staff. Hospitals with a Massive Hemorrhage Protocol increased significantly from 65% (n = 150) in 2018 to 77% (n = 159) in 2023 (p = 0.02). Small transfusion hospitals (< 5000 red blood cell units transfused/year) saw an increase in Massive Hemorrhage Protocol adoption from 60 to 74% (p = 0.02). By 2023, 95% (n = 159) of hospitals had/were implementing a Massive Hemorrhage Protocol. However, gaps in alignment to evidence-based recommendations remained, including hypothermia monitoring (missing in 25% of Massive Hemorrhage Protocols) tranexamic acid dosing (missing in 19%), and quality metric tracking (missing in 55%). Pediatric content was absent in 45% of Massive Hemorrhage Protocols in health centers caring for children.

CONCLUSION

The provincial Massive Hemorrhage Protocol toolkit's dissemination was feasible and associated with increased adoption in Ontario hospitals. Two-years post rollout, 77% of provincial hospitals have Massive Hemorrhage Protocols in place. Opportunities remain to align contents with evidence-based recommendations and expand to remaining hospitals. This strategy could guide other jurisdictions to improve Massive Hemorrhage Protocol adoption and harmonize practices.

Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Infectious Complications Among Pediatric Patients with Cancer

Background: Perioperative blood transfusion has been identified as a risk factor for postoperative infectious complications in adult patients with cancer. This study aimed to determine whether this association also exists in pediatric patients with cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric (NSQIP-P) database. Pediatric patients with an active cancer diagnosis at the time of surgical intervention from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson chi-square and Fisher's exact tests as well as multiple logistic regression. Result: In total, 14,973 pediatric patients who underwent a surgical procedure and had an active cancer diagnosis at the time of operation were identified. Of these, 2602 patients (17.4%) received a perioperative blood transfusion (PBT). Patients who received a PBT experienced higher rates of postoperative infectious complications, including surgical-site infection (p < 0.0001), pneumonia (p < 0.0001), urinary tract infection (p < 0.0001), C. difficile infection (p < 0.0001), central-line-associated bloodstream infection (p < 0.0001), and sepsis (p < 0.0001). Patients who received a PBT also had increased 30-day mortality compared with those who did not receive a PBT (p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, PBT remained an independent risk factor for postoperative infectious complications (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.61-2.32) and death (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.23-2.71). Conclusions: Pediatric patients with cancer who undergo surgery and receive a blood transfusion in the perioperative period have increased 30-day mortality and are at increased risk for postoperative infectious complications. Considering that these patients are often immunosuppressed at baseline, infections can be particularly devastating in this population. As such, it is important to carefully consider the risks and benefits of PBT prior to transfusion.

Perioperative Immunosuppressive Factors during Cancer Surgery: An Updated Review

Surgical excision of the primary tumor represents the most frequent and curative procedure for solid malignancies. Compelling evidence suggests that, despite its beneficial effects, surgery may impair immunosurveillance by triggering an immunosuppressive inflammatory stress response and favor recurrence by stimulating minimal residual disease. In addition, many factors interfere with the immune effectors before and after cancer procedures, such as malnutrition, anemia, or subsequent transfusion. Thus, the perioperative period plays a key role in determining oncological outcomes and represents a short phase to circumvent anesthetic and surgical deleterious factors by supporting the immune system through the use of synergistic pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. In line with this, accumulating studies indicate that anesthetic agents could drive both protumor or antitumor signaling pathways during or after cancer surgery. While preclinical investigations focusing on anesthetics' impact on the behavior of cancer cells are quite convincing, limited clinical trials studying the consequences on survival and recurrences remain inconclusive. Herein, we highlight the main factors occurring during the perioperative period of cancer surgery and their potential impact on immunomodulation and cancer progression. We also discuss patient management prior to and during surgery, taking into consideration the latest advances in the literature.

Ethical issues in solid organ transplantation: transfusion-free transplantation in Jehovah's witness patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept transfusion of major allogeneic blood fractions. Successful solid organ transplantation is challenging for Jehovah's Witnesses when anemia, coagulation disturbances, and difficult technical aspects co-exist, and key blood bank resources cannot be utilized. Organ availability for transplantation is limited and demand exceeds supply for all organ types. Historically, the likelihood of poor outcomes in Jehovah's Witnesses patients placed ethical limitations on transplant candidacy for this population violating the precept of maximal utilization of a limited resource. The review's purpose is to describe advancements and strategies that make Jehovah's Witnesses transplant outcomes comparable to transfusion-eligible patients and allay the ethical concerns of their candidacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Immunomodulation from allogeneic transfusion is a cause of significant postop morbidity. Blood conservation strategies have led to improved outcomes across different medical and surgical cohorts and set the stage for expanded utility in Jehovah's Witnesses with organ insufficiency.Published single-center series with descriptions of specific peri-operative strategies describe the path to major blood product avoidance.

SUMMARY

Comparable outcomes in solid organ transplantation for Jehovah's Witnesses without allogeneic transfusion are possible when inclusion-exclusion criteria are respected, and blood conservation strategies employed.