Retrospective cohort study demonstrates lower transfusion rates and complications in cardiac surgery patients undergoing cell salvage, supporting its routine use.
BackgroundThis study investigated whether implementation of cell salvage of shed mediastinal and residual blood in all patients undergoing low‐to‐moderate–risk cardiac surgery reduces the need for allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion compared to patients not subjected to cell salvage.Study Design and MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing low‐to‐moderate–risk cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass without (control; n = 531) or with cell salvage (n = 433; Autolog, Medtronic). Study endpoints, including 24‐hour blood loss and RBC requirements, were evaluated using adjusted logistic regression.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between groups. The cell saver group received 568 ± 267 mL of autologous blood. Median number of allogeneic RBC transfusions was higher in the control group (2 [1‐5]) compared with the cell salvage group (1 [0‐3]; p < 0.001). There were no clinically relevant differences in postoperative coagulation test results between groups. The relative risk (RR) for postoperative RBC transfusion was reduced to 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70‐0.83; p < 0.0001) in the cell salvage group. Moreover, patients in the cell salvage group had a lower chance for myocardial infarction (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08‐0.91; p = 0.035), whereas the cell salvage group was associated with a higher probability for intensive care discharge within 24 hours after surgery (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02‐1.14; p = 0.009).ConclusionThe use of cell salvage throughout the entire procedure reduces postoperative blood loss and allogeneic RBC transfusion. These findings advocate implementation of cell salvage in all patients undergoing on‐pump cardiac surgery, irrespective of anticipated surgery‐related blood loss.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vonk et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: