首页> 外文期刊>The Medical Journal of Australia: Journal of the Australian Medical Association >Use of interventions to minimise perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in Australia. A survey by the International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) Study Group (see comments)
【24h】

Use of interventions to minimise perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in Australia. A survey by the International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) Study Group (see comments)

机译:使用干预措施来最大程度地减少澳大利亚的围手术期同种异体输血。 国际围手术期输血(ISPOT)研究小组的调查(请参阅评论)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To investigate use of interventions to minimise need for perioperative transfusion of allogeneic blood in surgical units in Australia. DESIGN: Two questionnaire-based surveys of practice. SETTING: All hospitals in Australia, 1996-1997. PARTICIPANTS: Survey 1: all Australian hospitals that have at least 50 beds and undertake surgery; Survey 2: surgical units identified as using the interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported rates of use of the various interventions (preoperative autologous donation, acute normovolaemic haemodilution [ANH], cell salvage, and drugs); use of guidelines; and perceptions about the appropriateness of current levels of use. RESULTS: Survey 1 was returned by 349 of 400 hospitals (87%) and Survey 2 by 324 of 578 surgical units (56%). Preoperative autologous donation was most widely used (70% of hospitals), most commonly in units performing orthopaedic or vascular surgery (65% and 37%, respectively). Cell salvage and ANH were used by 27% and 24% of hospitals, respectively, most often in units performing cardiothoracic (40% and 44%, respectively) and vascular surgery (29% and 15%, respectively). These three interventions were used significantly more in private than in public hospitals (P < 0.05). Use of printed guidelines was uncommon. Respondents considered that autologous transfusion techniques should be used more widely because of their perceived efficacy and concerns about safety of allogeneic blood. Perceived barriers to greater use included lack of surgeon or physician interest, uncertain scheduling of surgery in public hospitals and cost (cell salvage). Drugs to minimise blood loss were used by fewer than 10% of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to minimise the need for perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion (apart from drugs) are widely used in Australia. However, enthusiasm for intraoperative techniques of re-infusing autologous blood needs to be assessed against the evidence of their efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
机译:目的:调查使用干预措施以最大程度地减少澳大利亚手术单元中同种异体血液围手术期输血的需求。设计:两项基于问卷的实践调查。环境:澳大利亚的所有医院,1996- 1997年。参与者:调查1:所有至少有50张床并进行手术的澳大利亚医院;调查2:被确定为使用干预措施的手术单元。主要结局指标:报告的各种干预措施的使用率(术前自体捐赠,急性正常伏溶液浸泡[ANH],细胞挽救和药物);使用准则;以及对当前使用水平的适当性的看法。结果:调查1由400家医院中的349人(87%)和578个手术单位中的324个归还。术前自体捐赠最广泛使用(医院的70%),最常见的是进行骨科或血管手术的单位(分别为65%和37%)。分别27%和24%的医院使用细胞挽救和ANH,最常见于进行心胸外科治疗(分别为40%和44%)和血管手术(分别为40%和44%)和血管手术(分别为29%和15%)。这三种干预措施在私人医院中的使用要大得多(p <0.05)。印刷指南的使用并不常见。受访者认为,自体输血技术应更广泛地使用,因为它们的感知功效和对同种异体血液安全的担忧。人们认为更多使用的障碍包括缺乏外科医生或医生的兴趣,不确定的公立医院手术安排和成本(细胞打捞)。不到10%的医院使用的药物以最大程度地减少失血。结论:在澳大利亚广泛使用了围手术期同种异体输血(除药物)的干预措施。然而,需要评估对自体血液的术中技术的热情,以根据其功效和成本效益的证据进行评估。

著录项

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