Dataset Information

The effect of non-point-of-care haemostasis management protocol implementation in cardiac surgery: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This systematic review aims to outline the evidence on the implementation of a non-point-of-care (non-point-of-care [POC]) haemostasis management protocol compared to experience-based practice in adult cardiac surgery.

Background

Management of coagulopathy in cardiac surgery is complex and remains highly variable among centres and physicians. Although various guidelines recommend the implementation of a transfusion protocol, the literature on this topic has never been systematically reviewed.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 till May 2020.

Results

A total of seven studies (one randomised controlled trial [RCT], one prospective cohort study, and five retrospective studies) met the inclusion criteria. Among the six non-randomised, controlled studies, the risk of bias was determined to be serious to critical, and the one RCT was determined to have a high risk of bias. Five studies showed a significant reduction in red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, and/or platelet transfusion after the implementation of a structural non-POC algorithm, ranging from 2% to 28%, 2% to 19.5%, and 7% to17%, respectively. One study found that fewer patients required transfusion of any blood component in the protocol group. Another study had reported a significantly increased transfusion rate of platelet concentrate in the haemostasis algorithm group.

Conclusion

Owing to the high heterogeneity and a substantial risk of bias of the included studies, no conclusion can be drawn on the additive value of the implementation of a cardiac-surgery-specific non-POC transfusion and haemostasis management algorithm compared to experience-based practice. To define the exact impact of a transfusion protocol on blood product transfusion, bleeding, and adverse events, well-designed prospective clinical trials are required.

SUBMITTER: Boxma RPJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8597010 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTransfusions in surgery can be life-saving interventions, but inappropriate transfusions may lack clinical benefit and cause harm. Transfusion decision-making in surgery is complex and frequently informed by haemoglobin (Hgb) measurement in the operating room. Point-of-care testing for haemoglobin (POCT-Hgb) is increasingly relied on given its simplicity and rapid provision of results. POCT-Hgb devices lack adequate validation in the operative setting, particularly for Hgb values within the transfusion zone (60-100 g/L). This study aims to examine the accuracy of intraoperative POCT-Hgb instruments in non-cardiac surgery, and the association between POCT-Hgb measurements and transfusion decision-making.Methods and analysisPREMISE is an observational prospective method comparison study. Enrolment will occur when adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery require POCT-Hgb, as determined by the treating team. Three concurrent POCT-Hgb results, considered as index tests, will be compared with a laboratory analysis of Hgb (lab-Hgb), considered the gold standard. Participants may have multiple POCT-Hgb measurements during surgery. The primary outcome is the difference in individual Hgb measurements between POCT-Hgb and lab-Hgb, primarily among measurements that are within the transfusion zone. Secondary outcomes include POCT-Hgb accuracy within the entire cohort, postoperative morbidity, mortality and transfusion rates. The sample size is 1750 POCT-Hgb measurements to obtain a minimum of 652 Hgb measurements <100 g/L, based on an estimated incidence of 38%. The sample size was calculated to fit a logistic regression model to predict instances when POCT-Hgb are inaccurate, using 4 g/L as an acceptable margin of error.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional ethics approval has been obtained by the Ottawa Health Science Network-Research Ethics Board prior to initiating the study. Findings from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. Social media will be leveraged to further disseminate the study results and engage with clinicians.

Project description:IntroductionDementia care management is a complex intervention intended to support persons with dementia and their (caring) relatives in home-based care arrangements. Dementia care management was developed in the federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania in Germany and subsequently adapted for the German region of Siegen-Wittgenstein, where it will now be implemented. Four different service providers will carry out the implementation process. This study protocol describes the planned procedures for the parallel evaluation of the implementation process.Methods and analysisA multiple embedded case study design was chosen for the planned process evaluation. Data collection and analysis will be informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change, the Medical Research Council framework for conducting process evaluations of complex interventions and the Taxonomy of Outcomes for Implementation Research. Information (qualitative and quantitative) will be collected from all stakeholders involved in the dementia care management intervention (ie, dementia care managers, general practitioners, people with dementia).Ethics and disseminationThe process evaluation is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the recommendations on good scientific practice, the research ethics principles of the Code of Ethics of the German Society of Nursing Science, and on the basis of ethical approval from the Clinical Ethics Committee of University Medicine Greifswald (BB 110/22). The results of the process evaluation will be disseminated through reports to the funders of the study and also as a summary of recommendations for the sustainable implementation of dementia care management for future implementers. We also plan to publish the results of this process evaluation in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT05529277, Registered 7 September 2022, https://beta.Clinicaltrialsgov/study/NCT05529277.

Project description:BackgroundValvular heart diseases are frequent and increasing in prevalence. Minimally invasive heart valve surgery embedded in an interdisciplinary enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program may have potential benefits with regard to reduced length of stay and improved patient reported outcomes. However, no prospective randomized data exist regarding the superiority of ERAS program for the patients' outcome.MethodsWe aim to randomize (1:1) a total of 186 eligible patients with minimally invasive heart valve surgery to an ERAS program vs. standard treatment at two centers including the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, and the University Hospital Augsburg, Germany. The intervention is composed out of pre-, peri-, and postoperative components. The preoperative protocol aims at better preparation for the operation with regard to physical activity, nutrition, and psychological preparedness. Intraoperative anesthesiologic and surgical management are trimmed to enable an early extubation. Patients will be transferred to a specialized postoperative anesthesia care unit, where first mobilization occurs 3 h after surgery. Transfer to low care ward will be at the next day and discharge at the fifth day. Participants in the control group will receive treatment as usual. Primary endpoints include functional discharge at discharge and duration of in-hospital care during the first 12 months after index surgery. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, health literacy, and level of physical activity.DiscussionThis is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an ERAS process after minimally invasive heart valve surgery. Interprofessional approach is the key factor of the ERAS process and includes in particular surgical, anesthesiological, physiotherapeutic, advanced nursing, and psychosocial components. A clinical implication guideline will be developed facilitating the adoption of ERAS model in other heart teams.Trial registrationThe study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04977362 assigned July 27, 2021).

Project description:Background:The Six Building Blocks for improving opioid management (6BBs) is a program for improving the management of patients in primary care practices who are on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. The 6BBs include building leadership and consensus; aligning policies, patient agreements, and workflows; tracking and monitoring patient care; conducting planned, patient-centered visits; tailoring care for complex patients; and measuring success. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the development of a 6BBs implementation guide: a step-by-step approach for independently implementing the 6BBs in a practice. This mixed-method study seeks to assess practices' use of the implementation guide to implement the 6BBs and the effectiveness of 6BBs implementation on opioid management processes of care among practices using the implementation guide. Methods:Data collection is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Proctor's taxonomy of implementation outcomes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. A diverse group of health care organizations with primary care clinics across the USA will participate in the study over 15?months. Qualitative data collection will include semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at each organization at two time points, notes from routine check-in calls, and document review. These data will be used to understand practices' motivation for participation, history with opioid management efforts, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and implementation progress. Quantitative data collection will consist of a provider and staff survey, an implementation milestones assessment, and quarterly opioid prescribing quality measures. These data will supplement our understanding of implementation progress and will allow us to assess changes over time in providers' opioid prescribing practices, prescribing self-efficacy, challenges to providing guideline-driven care, and practices' opioid prescribing quality measures. Qualitative data will be coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and clustered multivariate regression. Discussion:This study contributes to the knowledge of the implementation and effectiveness of a team-based approach to opioid management in primary care practices. Information gleaned from this study can be used to inform efforts to curtail opioid prescribing and assist primary care practices considering implementing the 6BBs.