Blood utilization in patients with burn injury and association with clinical outcomes (CME)

Blood transfusions in non-major burns patients

BACKGROUND

Blood transfusions are essential to treating anaemia of burn injuries. It has recently been observed that patients with non-major burns < 20%TBSA may also develop anaemia requiring transfusion of blood products. Due to the morbidity and mortality rate associated with blood transfusions better understanding of risk factors may guide clinical practices to improve patient care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine risk factors for transfusion of blood products in patients with non-major burn injuries and assess transfusion practices to establish impact on patient outcome.

METHOD

Our study included 182 adult patients with non-major burn injuries, < 20%TBSA admitted over a 3-year period at the Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit of the Emergency County Hospital Cluj-Napoca. We analysed patient and injury characteristics: age, gender, %TBSA burn, %FT burn, burn site, mechanism of injury, inhalation injury, Hb lab determinations throughout admission and surgical management. Charlson comorbidities index has been determined based on cardiovascular, neurological, gastrointestinal and renal comorbidities as well as diabetes mellitus. We selected blood transfusions, wound infections and length of hospital stay as outcome for our analysis.

RESULTS

37.9% of patients included in our study developed anaemia throughout admission and 7.7% underwent blood transfusions. Mean Hb levels triggering blood transfusions have been recorded at 7.4 (IQR=8.8-9.9) g/dL. Patients who received transfusions were older, presented with higher %TBSA and associated a higher comorbidity index. They also tended to develop coagulopathy and underwent more surgical procedures to achieve wound closure. In transfused patients who associate comorbidities we observed a higher rate of wound infections and longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient related comorbidities correlate with higher transfusion rates in non-major burn injuries. Due to the risk associated with the use of blood products decision to transfuse should adhere to current guideline practices and be tailored to specific patient requirements.

Use of blood products during the first months of COVID-19 pandemic period: A single center report

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak exerted a serious effect on healthcare. Between 1st of January and May 31, 2020 due to the special regulations in Hungary, the number of reported COVID-19 infections were relatively low (3876 cases). The inpatient and outpatient care and the blood supply were significantly affected by the implemented regulations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of blood products amid the first five months of the pandemic situation. This investigation has observed a significant reduction of hospitalizations (37.35%). Analyzing individually the included units, pre-transfusion hemoglobin concentrations of transfused patients presented slight modifications, which were not statistically significant. The special regulations resulted major changes in the frequency of diagnoses at admissions in case of the Department of Surgery, while in case of the other specialities (Division of Hematology and Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy), there were no major changes compared to pre-pandemic period. Considering each department separately, transfused red blood cell concentrates (RBC) per patient, and the proportion of transfused patients did not change significantly. However, the combination of these modifications resulted in the significant decrease in RBC transfusions (p < 0.0001) compared to the pre-pandemic baseline. With regard to platelet and fresh frozen plasma (FFP), their usage was significantly reduced (44.40% platelet concentrates and 34.27% FFP). Our results indicate that the pandemic had an important effect on the blood product usage at the included departments by introducing different patient care policies and the temporary deferral of the elective surgical interventions. Despite the challenging circumstances of blood collection and blood product supply, the hospitalized patients received adequate care.

Temporal trends, predictors of blood transfusion and in-hospital outcomes among patients with severe burn injury in the United States-A national database-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe burn can be accompanied by life-threatening bleeding on some occasions, thus, blood transfusion is often required in these patients during their hospitalization. Therefore, we aimed to examine temporal trends, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of blood transfusion in these patients in the United States.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample was used to identify severe burn patients between January 2010 and September 2017 in the United States. Trends in the utilization of blood transfusion were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. Moreover, propensity score matching (PSM) was employed, and then in-hospital outcomes were compared between these two groups in the matched cohort. Multivariable logistic regressions were further used to validate the results of PSM.

RESULTS

Among 27,260 severe burn patients identified during the study period, 2120 patients (7.18%) received blood transfusion. Blood transfusion rates decreased significantly from 9.52% in 2010 to 5.02% in 2017 (p for trend <.001). In the propensity-matched cohort (2120 pairs with and without transfusion), patients transfused were at increased risk of in-hospital mortality (13.3% vs 8.77%, p < .001), overall postoperative complications (88.3% vs 72.59%, p < .001), longer hospital stays (defined as > median hospital stays = 5 d) (73.8% vs 50.6%, p < .001) and increased overall cost (defined as > median overall costs = 30,746) (81.6% vs 57.3%, p < .001). This was also the case for the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood transfusion following severe burn injury may be associated with worse clinical outcomes. The utility for blood transfusion in burn patients warrants further prospective exploration.

Treatment of Anaemia in Patients with Acute Burn Injury: A Study of Blood Transfusion Practices

Objective: To determine blood transfusion practices, risk factors, and outcomes associated with the use of blood products in the setting of the acute management of burn patients at the Victorian Adult Burn Service. Background: Patients with burn injuries have variable transfusion requirements, based on a multitude of factors. We reviewed all acute admissions to the Victorian Adult Burns Service (VABS) between 2011 and 2017: 1636 patients in total, of whom 948 had surgery and were the focus of our analysis. Method and results: Patient demographics, surgical management, transfusion details, and outcome parameters were collected and analyzed. A total of 175 patients out of the 948 who had surgery also had a blood transfusion, while 52% of transfusions occurred in the perioperative period. The median trigger haemoglobin in perioperative was 80mg/dL (IQR = 76–84.9 mg/dL), and in the non-perioperative setting was 77 mg/dL (IQR = 71.61–80.84 mg/dL). Age, gender, % total body surface area (TBSA) burn, number of surgeries, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were associated with transfusion. Conclusions: The use of blood transfusions is an essential component of the surgical management of major burns. As observed in our study, half of these transfusions are related to surgical procedures and may be influenced by the employment of blood conserving strategies. Furthermore, transfusion trigger levels in stable patients may be amenable to review and reduction. Risk adjusted analysis can support the implementation of blood transfusion as a useful quality indicator in burn care.

Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Is More Effective in Massive Burns: Results of the TRIBE Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Studies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20-59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy.

METHODS

Patients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin <7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin <10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p < 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p < 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p < 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20-59%) group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing.

Demographic characteristics of blood and blood components transfusion recipients and pattern of blood utilization in a tertiary health institution in southern Nigeria

Background

An insight into the utilization pattern helps in future planning of blood drive. This study was conducted to describe the demographic characteristics of the transfusion recipients and pattern of blood and blood product utilization in Nigeria.

Methods

Blood bank registers of University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (UCTH) Calabar were analysed for a 12 month period. Number of blood units requested, number of units issued, Cross-match to transfusion ratio (C/T), age, gender, blood group, blood components received, patients ward and clinical diagnosis were computed. Diagnoses were grouped into broad categories according to the disease headings of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10).

Results

Majority of the 2336 transfusion recipients studied were females (69.09%) and are in the reproductive age group; 15-49 years (75.23%). The median age of the recipients was 35 years (range, 0-89). Most of the recipients (n = 1636; 70.04%) received whole blood transfusion. Majority (94.46%) of the cross-matched units were issued giving C/T ratio of 1.06. The common blood group type was O Rhesus positive (62.63%). Obstetrics and Gynecology had the highest blood requisition (41.40%). The majority of the patients were diagnosed with conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth (38.70%), conditions originating in prenatal period (14.38%). The age range of 25-54 years had the highest blood transfusion requests (n = 501; 51.07%), of these, females were majority (n = 390;77.84%).

Conclusions

Our study recorded mostly young patients who received mostly whole blood. Most of the patients in the reproductive age group received transfusion for pregnancy and child-birth related cases.

Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation (TRIBE): A Multicenter Randomized Prospective Trial of Blood Transfusion in Major Burn Injury

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare outcomes of a restrictive to a liberal red cell transfusion strategy in 20% or more total body surface area (TBSA) burn patients. We hypothesized that the restrictive group would have less blood stream infection (BSI), organ dysfunction, and mortality.

BACKGROUND

Patients with major burns have major (>1 blood volume) transfusion requirements. Studies suggest that a restrictive blood transfusion strategy is equivalent to a liberal strategy. However, major burn injury is precluded from these studies. The optimal transfusion strategy in major burn injury is thus needed but remains unknown.

METHODS

This prospective randomized multicenter trial block randomized patients to a restrictive (hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL) or liberal (hemoglobin 10-11 g/dL) transfusion strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen burn centers enrolled 345 patients with 20% or more TBSA burn similar in age, TBSA burn, and inhalation injury. A total of 7054 units blood were transfused. The restrictive group received fewer blood transfusions: mean 20.3 ± 32.7 units, median = 8 (interquartile range: 3, 24) versus mean 31.8 ± 44.3 units, median = 16 (interquartile range: 7, 40) in the liberal group (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum). BSI incidence, organ dysfunction, ventilator days, and time to wound healing (P > 0.05) were similar. In addition, there was no 30-day mortality difference: 9.5% restrictive versus 8.5% liberal (P = 0.892, χ test).

CONCLUSIONS

A restrictive transfusion strategy halved blood product utilization. Although the restrictive strategy did not decrease BSI, mortality, or organ dysfunction in major burn injury, these outcomes were no worse than the liberal strategy (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01079247).

Safety and effectiveness of propranolol in severely burned patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of propranolol compared to placebo or usual care for improving clinical relevant outcomes in severely burned patients (TBSA >20%).

METHODS

Relevant articles from randomized controlled trials were identified by a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included trials involving patients with a severe burn (>20% of total body surface area affected). Trials were eligible if they evaluated propranolol and compared to usual care or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for the final analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included ten studies in our systematic review. These studies randomized a total of 1236 participants. There were no significant differences between propranolol and placebo with respect to mortality (RD -0.02 [95% CI -0.06 to 0.02]), sepsis (RD -0.03 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.04]), and the overall hospital stay (MD -0.37 [-4.52 to 3.78]). Propranolol-treated adults had a decrease in requirements of blood transfusions (MD -185.64 [95% CI -331.06 to -40.43]) and a decreased heart rate (MD -26.85 [95% CI -39.95 to -13.75]).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis indicates that there were no differences in mortality or sepsis in severely burned patients treated with propranolol compared with those who had usual care or placebo. However, the use of propranolol in these patients resulted in lower requirements of blood transfusion and lower values of heart rate. The evidence synthesized in this systematic review is limited to conclude that propranolol reduces the length of hospital stay among severely burned patients. Future trials should assess the impact of propranolol on clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events.

Major burn injury is not associated with acute traumatic coagulopathy

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiology and time course of coagulopathy after major burns are inadequately understood. Our study objectives were to determine whether acute traumatic coagulopathy (ATC) is seen in burn patients at admission and to determine the changes in international normalized ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), platelet count (PLT), and hemoglobin (Hgb) in the first 7 days after injury.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with burn injury of at least 15% total body surface area who presented to the University of North Carolina. Data on patient demographics, injury characteristics, and laboratory data (INR, aPTT, PLT, and Hgb) at admission and within the first 7 days after injury were recorded. We defined ATC as INR of 1.3 or greater, aPTT of 1.5 or greater times the mean normal limit, and normal PLT at admission.

RESULTS

We studied the hematologic profile of 102 patients with burn injury of 15% to 100% total body surface area but did not identify a single patient with ATC at admission. The screening hematologic profile at admission was not influenced by burn severity. In the first 7 days after injury, the INR and aPTT were relatively preserved, while the PLT quickly recovered to baseline after an early decline and the Hgb remained stable at around 10 g/dL; all these changes occurred during the time when the burn patients had received large amounts of fluid resuscitation.

CONCLUSION

The screening hematologic profile of burn patients at admission is normal, and the standard screening assays do not suggest the existence of ATC at admission. While this is a relatively small study, it provides evidence to suggest that ATC is unique to trauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, level III.