These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Blood conservation for myocardial revascularization. Is it cost effective?
    Author: Breyer RH, Engelman RM, Rousou JA, Lemeshow S.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Apr; 93(4):512-22. PubMed ID: 3104693.
    Abstract:
    A total of 284 patients undergoing myocardial revascularization were prospectively studied to determine if the use of intraoperative autotransfusion or intraoperative autotransfusion plus postoperative reinfusion of shed mediastinal blood decreased transfusion requirements and the use of one or both techniques was cost effective. The Haemonetics Cell Saver System was used for intraoperative autotransfusion and the Sorenson Receptaseal autotransfusion system for postoperative reinfusion of shed mediastinal blood. During Phase 1, the Cell Saver System was used for 57 patients and 93 patients served as a control group. During Phase 2, the Cell Saver System plus the autotransfusion system were used in 43 patients and 91 patients were in the control group. Separate parallel analyses to compare the blood conservation groups to control groups were conducted for each phase of the study. The patient groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, preoperative red cell mass, preoperative hematocrit value, number of bypasses, and use of internal mammary grafts. Blood conservation techniques resulted in significant reductions in the use of bank blood. During Phase 1, Cell Saver System patients received an average of 2.8 units of packed cells versus 4.7 units for control patients. Transfusion was avoided entirely in 14% of Cell Saver System patients compared to 3% of control patients. During Phase 2, patients subjected to both the Cell Saver System and the autotransfusion system received an average of 1 unit of packed red cells versus 3 units for control patients. Transfusion was required in only 42% of patients subjected to both the Cell Saver System and the autotransfusion system compared to 85% of control patients. Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed that the use of the Cell Saver System in Phase 1 and the Cell Saver System and autotransfusion system in Phase 2 were each independently predictive of decreased transfusion requirements. The total "blood-related costs" (including cost for all bank blood products plus Receptaseal and Cell Saver System equipment) was slightly lower for the blood conservation patients in both Phase 1 ($555.00 versus $615.00, no significant difference) and Phase 2 ($373.00 versus $426.00, no significant difference). Intraoperative use of the Cell Saver System is associated with substantial savings of bank blood, and the addition of postoperative reinfusion of shed mediastinal blood results in further bank blood savings. The use of blood conservation techniques is cost effective; that is, the costs incurred for the blood conservation equipment are more than offset by the resultant dollar savings for blood products.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]