...
首页> 外文期刊>PLoS Medicine >Cell salvage and donor blood transfusion during cesarean section: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (SALVO)
【24h】

Cell salvage and donor blood transfusion during cesarean section: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (SALVO)

机译:剖宫产术中的细胞抢救和输血:一项实用,多中心的随机对照试验(SALVO)

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Excessive haemorrhage at cesarean section requires donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. Cell salvage may reduce this requirement. Methods and findings We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (at 26 obstetric units; participants recruited from 4 June 2013 to 17 April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) versus current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in cesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2 ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive babies (a secondary outcome) between groups. Among 3,028 women randomised (2,990 analysed), 95.6% of 1,498 assigned to intervention had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) versus 3.9% of 1,492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference ?1.03, 95% CI ?2.13 to 0.06). In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 4.6% in women assigned to control versus 3.0% in the intervention group among emergency cesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 2.2% versus 1.8% among elective cesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The rate of fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with the intervention (10.5% in the control group versus 25.6% in the intervention group, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14, p = 0.013). We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. Conclusions The overall reduction observed in donor blood transfusion associated with the routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section was not statistically significant. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN as trial number 66118656 and can be viewed on http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656 .
机译:背景剖宫产出血过多需要输血(同种异体)。抢救细胞可以减少这一需求。方法和研究结果我们进行了一项实用的随机对照试验(在26个产科部门;从2013年6月4日至2016年4月17日招募的参与者),对剖宫产常规不使用常规抢救性药物(对照)的常规护理(干预)与当前护理标准有出血风险的女性中。使用可变大小的随机排列块将随机化分层。在意向性治疗分析中,我们使用了多变量模型,根据先验确定的分层变量和预后因素进行了调整,比较了RhD-阴性的RhD-阴性女性中供体输血(主要结局)和母体出血≥2 ml的比率。组之间的阳性婴儿(次要结果)。在随机分配的3,028名妇女中(分析了2,990名),分配给干预措施的1,498名妇女中有95.6%进行了细胞抢救(50.8%的抢救者血液回流;平均259.9毫升),而分配给对照组的1,492名则有3.9%。对照组的供血率为3.5%,而干预组为2.5%(调整后的优势比[OR]为0.65,95%的置信区间[CI]为0.42至1.01,p = 0.056;调整后的风险差异为1.03,95%) CI = 2.13至0.06)。在计划的亚组分析中,在紧急剖宫产中,被分配为对照组的女性的输血率为4.6%,而干预组的输血率为3.0%(调整后的OR 0.58,95%CI 0.34至0.99),而选择性剖宫产的输血率为2.2%,而1.8%剖宫产(调整后的OR 0.83,95%CI 0.38至1.83)(互动p = 0.46)。没有观察到羊水栓塞的情况。干预后的胎儿母体出血发生率更高(对照组为10.5%,干预组为25.6%,校正后的OR值为5.63,95%CI为1.43至22.14,p = 0.013)。我们无法评论长期抗体致敏作用。结论剖宫产期间常规使用细胞挽救相关的供体输血观察到的总体减少无统计学意义。试验注册该试验已在ISRCTN上预先注册,注册号为66118656,可以在http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656上进行查看。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号