Who benefits from red blood cell salvage?—Utility and value of intraoperative autologous transfusion

Steve Frank

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03293.x

2011-10-01

Transfusion

Abstract:A lthough intraoperative autotransfusion (IAT) became commercially available in the late 1960s, the technology did not gain clinical popularity until the mid-1970s, a time when the risk of viral transmission from allogeneic blood transfusion was of major concern. The value of IAT was quickly recognized in the early to mid 1980s, when 2% of all HIV/ AIDS cases in the United States resulted from blood transfusion, and the risk of viral hepatitis from transfusion was as high as 3% to 10%. The utility of IAT was initially described in patients undergoing cardiac, vascular, and transplant surgery. For these procedures, several early studies demonstrated a 50% reduction in allogeneic blood requirements, with overall cost savings demonstrated when more than 2 or 3 units of transfused blood was required or when surgical blood loss exceeded 700 mL. Not only were costs reduced with IAT, but safety and efficacy were also demonstrated, and the conservation of a scarce supply of blood became possible. IAT was clearly beneficial for patients with rare blood types, those with red blood cell (RBC) alloantibodies, and those who refused allogeneic transfusions for religious reasons. In this issue of TRANSFUSION, Waters and colleagues present the largest series of IAT cases to date, with nearly 20,000 cases performed in a network of 12 hospitals over a 5-year period. By setting a measurement criteria of at least 1 unit equivalent of RBCs returned to the patient in more than half of the patients undergoing a given surgical procedure, the authors have defined which procedures are most appropriate for utilizing IAT. It is no surprise that the greatest yield of return for salvaged blood was seen in patients who were undergoing cardiac, major vascular, and transplant procedures. However, at the other extreme, there were a large number of procedures in which returned blood was typically less than 1 blood unit equivalent. Overall, almost half of the procedures studied (46.5%) failed to meet the criteria for IAT utility ( 1 RBC unit equivalent returned). Although the authors calculated more than $2 million in cost savings from the use of IAT over the 5-year period for the 12 hospitals combined, they concluded that using IAT more selectively would improve overall efficiency. What is novel in the current study is how the high-yield IAT surgical procedures compare to other procedures with a lower yield.The most frequently performed surgeries that did not show clear benefit from IAT were orthopedic (total hip replacement), lumbar spine, and prostate surgeries. In fact, removing these three surgical procedures from the total case mix (from Table 2 of the article) would eliminate 82% (7594 of 9244) of the patients who received less than 1 unit equivalent of returned RBCs. When these three surgical procedures are further analyzed by averaging the ratios of patients receiving 1 unit or more to those receiving less than 1 unit, the resulting ratio is 0.21, indicating that only one out of five of these patients received 1 unit equivalent or more of returned RBCs. The authors appropriately explain that their findings are likely to be institution specific and that other centers should examine their own cases to define which patients would most benefit from IAT. Of course it is sometimes difficult or impossible to predict which patient undergoing a given procedure is going to experience significant intraoperative blood loss, thus making the decision to use IAT sometimes difficult. Certain procedures, such as lumbar spine cases, can represent a wide spectrum of surgical invasiveness and corresponding blood loss. It is somewhat surprising that the study reports using IAT in the “minor” spine cases, such as laminectomy and spinal decompression surgeries, where expected blood loss is relatively small compared to the larger multilevel spine fusions with instrumentation. It was also interesting that even the lumbar spine cases with fusion did not show a consistent benefit from IAT. Depending on the type of spinal fusion, the ratios in the authors’ Table 2 demonstrate that only 16% to 46% of these patients received 1 blood unit equivalent or more in returned RBCs. This somewhat low IAT yield may be explained by advanced surgical technique (or skill) that could be specific to the authors’ institution, since blood loss can often be dramatic in these cases, depending on the number of spinal disk spaces that are fused and other surgical variables. The authors should be commended for gathering such a large series of cases to define the utility of IAT for the purpose of optimizing case selection. Perhaps the picture would be more complete, however, if additional information was given, such as estimated intraoperative blood loss, or postoperative hemoglobin levels. Of equal importance would be the percentage of patients undergoing a given procedure who were spared from receiving any allogeneic blood component as a result of IAT. This additional information would allow others to better TRANSFUSION 2011;51:2058-2060.