Dataset Information

Comparative changes of pre-operative autologous transfusions and peri-operative cell salvage in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With improved safety of allogeneic blood supply, the use of preoperative autologous donations (PADs) and perioperative autologous cell salvage (PACS) has evolved. This study evaluated temporal trends in PAD and PACS use in the United States.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample database, a stratified probability sample of 20% of hospitalizations in the United States, was used to compare temporal trends in hospitalizations reporting use of PADs and PACS from 1995 to 2015. Factors associated with their use were examined between 2012 and 2015 with use of multivariable Poisson regression. Sampling weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates.

Results

There was a steady decrease in hospitalizations reporting PAD transfusions from 27.90 per 100 000 in 1995 to 1.48 per 100 000 hospitalizations in 2015 (P-trend <.001). In contrast, PACS increased from a rate of 1.16 per 100 000 in 1995 to peak of 20.51 per 100 000 hospitalizations in 2008 and then steadily declined (P-trend<.001). Higher odds of PACS and PADs were observed in older patients, elective procedures (vs urgent), and urban teaching/nonteaching hospitals (vs rural hospitals) (P < .001). PACS was more common in hospitalizations in patients with higher levels of severity of illness as compared to those with minor severity (adjusted prevalence ratio [adjPR], 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-2.73; P<.001), while PADs were performed less often in patients with higher underlying severity of illness (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups, 4 vs 1, adjPR, 0.61; 95% CI, [0.39-0.95]; P = .028).

Conclusions

There was a significant decrease in PAD red blood cell transfusions, while PACS has increased and subsequently decreased; PACS plays an important role in surgical blood conservation. The subsequent decline in PACS likely reflects further optimization of transfusion practice through patient blood management programs and improvement of surgical interventions.

SUBMITTER: Goel R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7902373 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To measure the association between a surgeon's degree of specialization in a specific procedure and patient mortality.Design Retrospective analysis of Medicare data.Setting US patients aged 66 or older enrolled in traditional fee for service Medicare.Participants 25?152 US surgeons who performed one of eight procedures (carotid endarterectomy, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve replacement, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, lung resection, cystectomy, pancreatic resection, or esophagectomy) on 695?987 patients in 2008-13.Main outcome measure Relative risk reduction in risk adjusted and volume adjusted 30 day operative mortality between surgeons in the bottom quarter and top quarter of surgeon specialization (defined as the number of times the surgeon performed the specific procedure divided by his/her total operative volume across all procedures).Results For all four cardiovascular procedures and two out of four cancer resections, a surgeon's degree of specialization was a significant predictor of operative mortality independent of the number of times he or she performed that procedure: carotid endarterectomy (relative risk reduction between bottom and top quarter of surgeons 28%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 48%); coronary artery bypass grafting (15%, 4% to 25%); valve replacement (46%, 37% to 53%); abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (42%, 29% to 53%); lung resection (28%, 5% to 46%); and cystectomy (41%, 8% to 63%). In five procedures (carotid endarterectomy, valve replacement, lung resection, cystectomy, and esophagectomy), the relative risk reduction from surgeon specialization was greater than that from surgeon volume for that specific procedure. Furthermore, surgeon specialization accounted for 9% (coronary artery bypass grafting) to 100% (cystectomy) of the relative risk reduction otherwise attributable to volume in that specific procedure.Conclusion For several common procedures, surgeon specialization was an important predictor of operative mortality independent of volume in that specific procedure. When selecting a surgeon, patients, referring physicians, and administrators assigning operative workload may want to consider a surgeon's procedure specific volume as well as the degree to which a surgeon specializes in that procedure.

Project description:BackgroundPartial ablation of the prostate using high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU-PA) is a treatment option for localised prostate cancer. When local recurrence occurs, salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a treatment option for selected patients, but there is a paucity of data on the peri-operative safety, functional and oncologic outcomes of sRARP.. The objective of this study was therefore to describe peri-operative safety, functional and early oncologic outcomes following salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) for local recurrence after HIFU-PA.MethodsRetrospective analysis of a prospective database of 53 consecutive men who underwent sRARP after HIFU-PA from 2012 to 2018. Continence and erectile-function were reported pre-HIFU, pre-sRARP, 3-months post-sRARP and 12-months post-sRARP. Complications, PSMs and need for subsequent ADT/radiotherapy were assessed.Results45 men were suitable for inclusion and had sufficient data for analyses. Median duration from HIFU to sRARP was 30.0 months and median follow-up post-sRARP was 17.7 months. Median age, PSA and ISUP group were 63.0 yrs., 7.2 ng/mL and 2; 88.9% were cT2. Median operative-console time, blood loss and hospital stay were 140 min, 200 ml and 1 day respectively. Clavien-Dindo grade 1, 2 and 3 complications < 90 days occurred in 8.9, 6.7 and 2.2%; late (>90d) complications occurred in 13.2%. At sRARP pathology, ISUP 3-5 occurred in 51.1%, pT3a/b in 64.5%, and PSMs in 44.4% (37.5% for pT2, 48.3% for pT3). Of men with > 3-months follow-up after sRARP, 26.3% underwent adjuvant radiotherapy/ADT for residual disease or adverse pathologic features; 5.3% experienced BCR requiring salvage ADT/radiotherapy. Freedom from ADT/radiotherapy was 66.7% at 12-months. Pad-free rates were 100% pre-HIFU, 95.3% post-HIFU, 29.4% 3-months post-sRARP, and 65.5% 12-months post-sRARP. Median IIEF-5 scores pre-HIFU, post-HIFU, 3- and 12-months post-sRARP were 23.5, 16, 5 and 5, respectively. Potency rates were 81.8, 65.5, 0 and 0%, respectively. Bilateral/unilateral nerve sparing were feasible in 7%/22%.ConclusionSalvage RARP was safe with acceptable but sub-optimal continence and poor sexual-function and poor oncologic outcomes. One in three men required additional treatment within 12-months. This information may aid men and urologists with treatment selection and counselling regarding primary HIFU-PA vs primary RARP and when considering salvage RARP.

Project description:Introduction: Salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) has been proposed as a treatment option for prostate cancer patients with lymph node (LN) recurrence following radical prostatectomy to delay or avoid palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Historically sLND has been performed using an open approach, with its associated morbidity. A limited number of studies have reported peri-operative outcomes following robot-assisted sLND. However, a direct comparison with the open approach has hitherto not yet been reported. This study investigates whether robot-assisted sLND is associated with better peri-operative outcomes compared to the open approach. Early oncological outcomes are also compared. Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, clinical data were collected from 60 patients undergoing open sLND between 2010-2016 and 30 patients undergoing robot-assisted sLND between 2016 and 2018 at our tertiary referral center. The primary objective of the study was to compare peri-operative outcomes (length of stay, estimated blood loss, operative time, intra-operative, and postoperative complications) and LN yield between both procedures. As secondary objective early oncological outcome [biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS)] was compared. Variables of interest were compared using the chi-squared test (categorical variables), two sample t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test (continuous variables). To compare BRFS and CRFS, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and log-rank tests were performed. Results: Robotic sLND was associated with reduced blood loss (median 100 vs. 275cc; p < 0.0001) and shorter length of stay (median 2 vs. 7 days; p < 0.0001) compared to open sLND. Moreover, postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery were more prevalent in the open sLND group compared to the robotic group (41.6% vs. 20%, p = 0.04). No significant differences in LN yield (for each sLND template), BRFS, and CRFS were detected between both groups. Conclusion: Robot-assisted sLND is associated with significantly reduced peri-operative morbidity compared to open sLND. No difference in LN yield, BRFS and CRFS was seen between both groups. Modern imaging techniques underestimate the tumor burden and therefore, the surgical sLND template should not be limited to the positive spots on pre-operative imaging.