The implications of trends in transfusion
L. Sherman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.1988.28689059021.x
1988-11-12
Transfusion
Abstract:In the last several decades, advancing technology in the areas of blood component preparation and preservation has barely kept pace with increasing demand for blood products. This has been particularly true with regard to component support for patients being treated for malignancies or undergoing increasingly complex types of surgery such as coronary bypass and liver transplantation. As a variety of components has become widely available, it has on occasion been difficult to separate patient need or necessity from rote request. Both blood bankers and clinicians have struggled with issues of appropriate versus inappropriate use of blood, beginning with concerns about single-unit transfusions. To a fair degree our knowledge about the hazards of the transfusion of particular components has come in circumstances wherein the rationale for use of the components was uncertain. Nonetheless, until recently, use has increased steadily, albeit with puzzling variations, such as the regional differences noted by Surgenor et al.’ The conversion to a largely volunteer donor base, as well as the advent of universal testing for hepatitis B, substantially lowered the risk of overt hepatitis and perhaps contributed to a feeling that blood transfusion was an almost completely benign process. The advent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) changed both public and physician perception about the safety of blood. The current level of fear is notable even though, whether as a result of demographic changes in donors, testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), surrogate testing for nonA, non-B hepatitis, or coagulation concentrate sterilization, all of the pharmaceuticals we call blood components and derivatives are probably safer now than they were 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Perhaps secondary to these fears, many blood centers and hospitals have noted an abatement, if not decline, in the use of blood products, and since 1985, three separate National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus conferences have focused on defining valid versus excessive use of plasma, platelets, and, most recently, red cells. Although these usage changes have been apparent recently in individual institutions, few analyses of their patterns have appeared until this issue of Transfusion, in which Surgenor et al. present data showing a major change in the use of red cell and plasma products in four sets of hospitals between 1980 and 1985. In general, growth slowed and then declined, although it is notable that the total use of both red cells and plasma rebounded slightly between 1984 and 1985, while platelet use increased dramatically. The use of autologous and apheresis products on the whole also increased. Surgenor et al. ascribe the major cause of the altered use of red cells and platelets to concerns about AIDS. Given the nature of the data, the impact of cost containment and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) must be considered as well. Improved inventory and crossmatching practices such as type and screen2 and maximum surgical blood ordering schedules3 decrease the immediate availability of blood and probably soothe itchy casual requests for transfusion. The degree to which operative blood use has been replaced by intraoperative salvage also is not addressed. Another factor is that careful usage reviews by hospital transfusion committees are now common due to requirements of the Joint Council on the Administration of Healthcare Organizations (JC AHO), Medicare, and others! Last, it is apparent to both blood bankers and hospital administrators that a unit not transfused saves more patient dollars than a unit not crossmatched. Thus, avoiding unnecessary transfusion is an effective method of reducing costs. If Surgenor and coworkers’ thesis that reduced blood use is a response to AIDS is correct, then to a fair degree, the picture painted is of a reactive mode. Educational writings and programs of the AABB and others emphasized conservatism in the use of blood products long before AIDS appeared. Yet blood use increased until public fears seemingly overwhelmed the medical community. In this context, it is somewhat disheartening to see that red cell use has not yet peaked in the university hospitals with TMAA recipients (group B). These individuals were selected for a TMAA because of innovative education programs in transfusion medicine, existing or planned. However, it would appear that, if anything, education was less effective in this group of institutions than in the others studied. Obviously, data from 1986 and beyond are very important. Detailed comparison of blood use in specific diagnoses, such as hip surgery from 1980 to 1985 would also aid analysis and would identify blood use for newer procedures in these tertiary institutions. Of equal importance would be a comparison of individual institutions in these groups, to find particular education programs that may have influenced trends rather than simply reflecting them. Part of the underlying rationale for the TMAA program was the improvement of the profession’s knowledge about appropriate use of blood products and, more particularly, the improvement of actual practice. End-use data of the kind presented by Surgenor et al. are