Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Can J Anaesth. 2023 Nov;70(11):1797-1806. doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02548-6. Epub 2023 Jul 28.
Blood sampling for diagnostic testing causes blood loss. Small-volume tubes have the same cost, dimensions, and blood-draw techniques as standard-volume tubes, and are compatible with laboratory equipment; however, they are not commonly used. We sought to assess the feasibility of a stepped-wedge cluster trial to determine whether small-volume tubes reduce transfusion compared with standard-volume tubes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
We conducted a prospective mixed-methods pilot study (before-after design) in one ICU with a six-week control period (standard-volume tubes) and a six-week intervention period (small-volume tubes). All patients admitted to the ICU were included. Feasibility was assessed as successful switch to small-volume tubes; adherence to tube size; sufficient volume for testing; user acceptance; barriers and facilitators to implementation; and 95% transfusion collection. We explored end-user acceptability using focus groups.
One hundred and sixty-five patients were included in the standard-volume and 204 in the small-volume periods. Transition to small-volume tubes was successful. Random audits showed 100% compliance. The proportion of samples with inadequate volume for testing was the same for both groups (both, 0.2%). Based on ten focus groups, small-volume tubes were acceptable with no barriers identified. Transfusion data collection was 100%. Median [interquartile range] estimated blood loss due to laboratory testing per patient per day in ICU was 11 [8-17] mL with standard-volume and 6 [4-8] mL with small-volume tubes.
Small-volume tubes can be implemented with acceptability to end-users and without barriers. They did not result in an increased frequency of inadequate samples. These results inform a trial to determine whether small-volume tubes reduce transfusion.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03284944); registered 15 September 2017.
诊断检测的采血会导致失血。小容量采血管与标准容量采血管具有相同的成本、尺寸和采血技术,并且与实验室设备兼容;然而,它们并不常用。我们旨在评估一项阶梯式楔形群试验的可行性,以确定与标准容量采血管相比,小容量采血管是否会减少重症监护病房(ICU)患者的输血。
我们在一家 ICU 进行了一项前瞻性混合方法试点研究(前后设计),有六周的对照期(标准容量采血管)和六周的干预期(小容量采血管)。所有入住 ICU 的患者均被纳入研究。可行性评估标准为小容量采血管成功切换;管型符合要求;有足够的标本用于检测;用户接受度;实施的障碍和促进因素;以及 95%的输血采集。我们通过焦点小组探索了最终用户的可接受性。
标准容量组纳入 165 例患者,小容量组纳入 204 例患者。小容量采血管的转换是成功的。随机审核显示,管型符合率为 100%。两组样本量不足进行检测的比例相同(均为 0.2%)。基于十个焦点小组,小容量采血管具有可接受性,未发现任何障碍。输血数据采集率为 100%。ICU 中每位患者每天因实验室检测而导致的估计失血量中位数[四分位数间距]为 11[8-17]mL(标准容量采血管)和 6[4-8]mL(小容量采血管)。
小容量采血管可以被最终用户接受并实施,不会产生障碍。它们并没有导致样本不足的频率增加。这些结果为一项旨在确定小容量采血管是否减少输血的试验提供了信息。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT03284944);注册于 2017 年 9 月 15 日。