Why the study?
Does preoperative autologous blood donation cause hemodynamic instability in high-risk patients with major cardiovascular or multiple organ disease?
Does preoperative autologous blood donation cause hemodynamic instability in high-risk patients with major cardiovascular or multiple organ disease?
Autologous blood donation in high-risk cardiovascular patients can lead to significant hemodynamic adverse events, highlighting the need for appropriate monitoring during elective phlebotomy.
May warrant closer monitoring during preoperative autologous donation in high-risk patients; leaves open causality and practice changes pending randomized data.
Transfusion practices have changed dramatically in recent years as a result of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome crisis. The use of preoperative donation of autologous blood units has gained popularity. Healthy individuals tolerate phlebotomy well, experiencing a 2- to 5-percent incidence of vasovagal reactions. However, no systematic study of hemodynamic function during phlebotomy exists for patients who have major cardiovascular or multiple organ disease (high-risk patients). The following protocol examines blood pressure, heart rate, cardiac output, lead II electrocardiogram, and pulse oximetry in 123 patients donating a total of 224 units of blood in a new high-risk autologous blood donation program that was conducted in a postanesthesia care unit over the past 18 months. Changes in hemodynamic variables during phlebotomy were consistent with mild volume depletion; the changes did not result in overall differences in the courses of the groups. Significant numbers of patients exhibited systolic or diastolic hypotension, dysrhythmias, syncope, and tachycardia. Because tolerance for hypotension (vasovagal reactions) is decreased in patients with coronary artery disease, appropriate monitoring may be warranted to maximize the safety of elective phlebotomy. Further study is required to stratify risks and to determine which hemodynamic variables are predictive of adverse events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spiess et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: