Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System for the most evidence-based approach to managing perioperative anticoagulation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We explored the feasibility of a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) to guide evidence-based perioperative anticoagulation. DESIGN: Prospective randomised clinical management simulation multicentre study. SETTING: Five University and 11 general hospitals in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled physicians (anaesthesiologist (n = 73), trauma surgeons (n = 2), unknown (n = 1)) with different professional experience. INTERVENTIONS: A CDSS based on a multiple-choice test was developed and validated at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (phase-I). The CDSS comprised European guidelines for the management of anticoagulation in cardiology, cardio-thoracic, non-cardio-thoracic surgery and anaesthesiology. Phase-II compared the efficiency of physicians in identifying evidence-based approach of managing perioperative anticoagulation. In total 168 physicians were randomised to CDSS (PERI-KOAG) or CONTROL. MEASUREMENTS: Overall mean score and association of processing time and professional experience were analysed. The multiple-choice test consists of 11 cases and two correct answers per question were required to gain 100% success rate (=22 points). MAIN RESULTS: In total 76 physicians completed the questionnaire (n = 42 PERI-KOAG; n = 34 CONTROL; attrition rate 54%). Overall mean score (max. 100% = 22 points) was significantly higher in PERI-KOAG compared to CONTROL (82 ± 15% vs. 70 ± 10%; 18 ± 3 vs. 15 ± 2 points; P = 0.0003). A longer processing time is associated with significantly increased overall mean scores in PERI-KOAG (≥33 min. 89 ± 10% (20 ± 2 points) vs. <33 min. 73 ± 15% (16 ± 3 points), P = 0.0005) but not in CONTROL (≥33 min. 74 ± 13% (16 ± 3 points) vs. <33 min. 69 ± 9% (15 ± 2 points), P = 0.11). Within PERI-KOAG, there is a tendency towards higher results within the more experienced group (>5 years), but no significant difference to less (≤5 years) experienced colleagues (87 ± 10% (19 ± 2 points) vs. 78 ± 17% (17 ± 4 points), P = 0.08). However, an association between professional experience and success rate in CONTROL has not been shown (71 ± 8% vs. 70 ± 13%, 16 ± 2 vs. 15 ± 3 points; P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: CDSS significantly improved the identification of evidence-based treatment approaches. A precise usage of CDSS is mandatory to maximise efficiency.

Avoidable Blood Loss in Critical Care and Patient Blood Management: Scoping Review of Diagnostic Blood Loss.

BACKGROUND: Anemia remains one of the most common comorbidities in intensive care patients worldwide. The cause of anemia is often multifactorial and triggered by underlying disease, comorbidities, and iatrogenic factors, such as diagnostic phlebotomies. As anemia is associated with a worse outcome, especially in intensive care patients, unnecessary iatrogenic blood loss must be avoided. Therefore, this scoping review addresses the amount of blood loss during routine phlebotomies in adult (>17 years) intensive care patients and whether there are factors that need to be improved in terms of patient blood management (PBM). METHODS: A systematic search of the Medline Database via PubMed was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The reported daily blood volume for diagnostics and other relevant information from eligible studies were charted. RESULTS: A total of 2167 studies were identified in our search, of which 38 studies met the inclusion criteria (9 interventional studies and 29 observational studies). The majority of the studies were conducted in the US (37%) and Canada (13%). An increasing interest to reduce iatrogenic blood loss has been observed since 2015. Phlebotomized blood volume per patient per day was up to 377 mL. All interventional trials showed that the use of pediatric-sized blood collection tubes can significantly reduce the daily amount of blood drawn. CONCLUSION: Iatrogenic blood loss for diagnostic purposes contributes significantly to the development and exacerbation of hospital-acquired anemia. Therefore, a comprehensive PBM in intensive care is urgently needed to reduce avoidable blood loss, including blood-sparing techniques, regular advanced training, and small-volume blood collection tubes.

Patient Blood Management in intensive care patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients admitted to ICUs are a heterogeneous group, displaying multiple anaemia risk factors and comorbidities. Clinicians should therefore take all possible measures to identify modifiable risks. Patient Blood Management (PBM) is an approach promoting the timely application of evidence-based interventions designed to maintain patients own blood mass. RECENT FINDINGS: Within ICU-patients, anaemia is highly prevalent. Generally, anaemia is associated with impaired outcome and need of blood transfusion. Currently, with ICUs working at full capacity and the global blood reserves exhausted, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic reinforces the need for PBM implementation. For instance, implementation of a comprehensive coagulation management and measures to avoid iatrogenic blood loss may prevent bleeding-associated complications and adherence to blood transfusion guidelines may reduce adverse events associated with transfusion. SUMMARY: Critically ill patients display various morbidities often requiring individualized treatment. PBM offers patient-centred measures to improve outcome any time during hospital stay.