Ouriel K, Shortell C K, Green R M, DeWeese J A
Department of Surgery, University of Rochester, NY 14642.
J Vasc Surg. 1993 Jul;18(1):16-22. doi: 10.1067/mva.1993.41709.
Intraoperative autotransfusion is frequently used in aortic surgery, despite the paucity of data regarding its safety and efficacy. This study was designed to compare whole blood autotransfusion with homologous transfusion for the replacement of blood lost during abdominal aortic procedures.
Whole blood autotransfusion was evaluated in 200 patients undergoing aortic reconstructive procedures during a 3-year period. Collection and reinfusion of unwashed filtered shed blood was undertaken in 100 patients, and clinical, laboratory, and economic parameters were compared with those in a group of 100 patients undergoing aortic operation with homologous banked blood replacement.
The two groups were comparable with respect to demography, the type of procedure, baseline laboratory profile, and the frequency of coexistent medical illnesses. The amount of blood salvaged and reinfused averaged 1729 +/- 68 ml in the autotransfusion group. Patients undergoing autotransfusion received a mean of 0.6 +/- 0.1 units of banked blood during operation, compared with 3.4 +/- 0.1 units in the homologous group (p < 0.001). Operative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable between the groups, as were length of hospital stay and total hospital costs. Coagulopathy, renal insufficiency, abnormalities of oxygen exchange, and electrolyte disorders were infrequent. Autotransfusion offered significant advantages over homologous blood replacement with respect to improved preservation of circulating platelets (201 +/- 9 vs 157 +/- 6 x 10(3)mm3, p < 0.001) and coagulation factors (242 +/- 11 vs 196 +/- 14 mg fibrinogen/dl, p < 0.01) and limitation of exposure to homologous blood (34% vs 92%, p < 0.001). There was a significant cost advantage with the use of autotransfusion, with an average savings of $288 in hospital expenses associated with blood products and infusion equipment. Patients undergoing autotransfusion demonstrated aberrations in fibrin degradation products (33 +/- 4.4 vs 9.6 +/- 3.2 micrograms/ml, p < 0.001) and free plasma hemoglobin (29 +/- 9.1 vs 9.4 +/- 0.5 mg/dl, p < 0.05), but these laboratory abnormalities did not acquire clinical significance.
These data suggest that autotransfusion of unwashed, filtered blood is a safe and efficacious alternative to homologous blood replacement in patients undergoing major aortic reconstructive procedures.
尽管关于术中自体输血的安全性和有效性的数据匮乏,但它仍常用于主动脉手术。本研究旨在比较全血自体输血与异体输血在腹主动脉手术中补充失血的情况。
在3年期间,对200例行主动脉重建手术的患者进行全血自体输血评估。100例患者进行未洗涤过滤的回收血的采集和回输,并将临床、实验室及经济参数与100例接受异体库血替代主动脉手术的患者进行比较。
两组在人口统计学、手术类型、基线实验室指标及并存疾病的发生率方面具有可比性。自体输血组回收和回输的平均血量为1729±68ml。自体输血患者术中平均接受0.6±0.1单位库血,而异体输血组为3.4±0.1单位(p<0.001)。两组的手术发病率和死亡率、住院时间及总住院费用相当。凝血功能障碍、肾功能不全、氧交换异常及电解质紊乱发生率较低。与异体输血相比,自体输血在更好地保存循环血小板(201±9对157±6×10³/mm³,p<0.001)和凝血因子(242±11对196±14mg纤维蛋白原/dl,p<0.01)以及减少异体血接触(34%对92%,p<0.001)方面具有显著优势。使用自体输血有显著的成本优势,与血液制品和输液设备相关的住院费用平均节省288美元。自体输血患者的纤维蛋白降解产物(33±4.4对9.6±3.2μg/ml,p<0.001)和游离血浆血红蛋白(29±9.1对9.4±0.5mg/dl,p<0.05)出现异常,但这些实验室异常未具有临床意义。
这些数据表明,对于行主动脉重建大手术的患者,未洗涤过滤血的自体输血是异体输血安全有效的替代方法。