Effects of Continuous Octreotide Infusion on Intraoperative Transfusion Requirements During Orthotopic Liver Transplantation.

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is often associated with major hemorrhage and a large red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirement. Massive transfusion during OLT has been associated with decreased patient and graft survival. As a result, the anesthesiologist may use various techniques to decrease intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements, including maintenance of a low central venous pressure, antifibrinolytic drugs, cell salvage, and vasopressors. Due to its properties of splanchnic vasoconstriction and resultant decrease in portal venous blood flow, octreotide may decrease blood loss during the preanhepatic phase of OLT. We performed a retrospective review of 50 consecutive liver transplantations; a continuous octreotide infusion was used during the preanhepatic phase in 30 of these cases. We hypothesized that intraoperative transfusion requirements would be reduced in those patients treated with octreotide. Statistical analysis found that the number of RBCs transfused decreased from 20.4 U to 18.1 U when octreotide was used, although this result was not statistically significant (P = .5). Additional analysis found a significant positive correlation between the number of RBCs transfused and total operating room (OR) time, preoperative international normalized ratio (INR), and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and a negative correlation between the number of RBCs transfused and preoperative platelets and hemoglobin. Although our small study did not show a statistical difference in the number of units transfused, there was an absolute difference. A prospective, randomized trial would be useful in elucidating the true effect of octreotide on RBC transfusion requirements during OLT.

Mental models of women with breast implants: local complications.

Twenty-five women with breast implants participated in semistructured interviews designed to reveal their "mental models" of the processes potentially causing local (i.e., nonsystemic) problems. The authors analyzed their responses in terms of an "expert model," circumscribing scientifically relevant information. Most of the women interviewed had something to say about most elements in the expert model. Nonetheless, gaps in their mental models undermined decision making about their implants. One woman misunderstood the terms used by the medical community to describe implant failure (e.g., rupture, leak, and bleed). Another exaggerated the implants' vulnerability to direct impacts, such as car accidents. Participants also overestimated their ability to detect localized problems and to select medical remedies. Although they were generally satisfied with their own implants, many participants were dissatisfied with the decision-making processes that lead to their choice. Their interviews are interpreted by the form and content of communications that women with implants need to help them manage their health decisions better.

Women's views on breast cancer risk and screening mammography: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: To promote informed decision making about mammography, clinicians are urged to present women with complete, relevant information about breast cancer and screening. Understanding women's current beliefs may help guide such efforts by uncovering misunderstandings, conceptual gaps, and areas of concern. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to learn how women view breast cancer, their personal risk of breast cancer, and how screening mammography affects that risk. METHODS: Forty-one open-ended semistructured telephone interviews with women selected from a national database by quota sampling to ensure a wide range in demographics of the participants. RESULTS: Almost all respondents viewed breast cancer as a uniformly progressive disease that begins in a silent curable form (typically found by mammograms) and, unless treated early, invariably grows, spreads, and kills. Some women felt that any abnormality found must be treated, even if it was not malignant. None had heard of potentially nonprogressive cancers, and when informed, most felt that the uncertain prognosis of such lesions reinforced the need to find and treat disease as soon as possible. Women expressed a wide range of views about their personal risk of breast cancer. Although some saw breast cancer as a central threat to their health, many others cited heart disease, other cancers, violence, and trauma as greater concerns. Most recognized the importance of "uncontrollable" factors for breast cancer such as age, sex, family history, and genetics. However, other "controllable" factors with little or no demonstrated link to breast cancer (e.g., smoking, diet, toxic exposures, "bad attitudes") were given equal or greater prominence, suggesting that many women feel considerable personal responsibility for their level of breast cancer risk. Similarly, although women recognized that mammography was not perfect, almost all believed that failure to have mammograms put one at risk for premature and preventable death. When asked how mammography worked, almost all repeated the message that "early detection saves lives," suggesting that advanced cancer (and perhaps most cancer deaths) reflected a failure of early detection. The belief in the benefit of early detection was so strong that some women advocated scaring other women into getting mammograms because it is "better to be safe than sorry." CONCLUSIONS: Women view breast cancer as a uniformly progressive disease rarely curable unless caught early. The exaggerated importance many attribute to a variety of controllable factors in modifying personal risk and the "danger" seen in failing to have mammograms may lead women diagnosed with breast cancer to blame themselves.

A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and researchers often wish to know how patients perceive the likelihoods of health risks. Little work has been done to develop and validate scales and formats to measure perceptions of event probabilities, particularly low probabilities (i.e., <1%). OBJECTIVE: To compare a new visual analog scale with three benchmarks in terms of validity and reliability. DESIGN: Survey with retest after approximately two weeks. Respondents estimated the probabilities of six events with the new scale, which featured a "magnifying glass" to represent probabilities between 0 and 1% on a logarithmic scale. Participants estimated the same probabilities on three benchmarks: two linear visual analog scales (one labeled with words, one with numbers) and a "1 in x" scale. SUBJECTS: 100 veterans and family members and 107 university faculty and students. MEASURES: For each scale, the authors assessed: 1) validity-the correlation between participants' direct rankings (i.e., numbering them from 1 to 6) and scale-derived rankings of the relative probabilities of six events; 2) test-retest reliability-the correlation of responses from test to retest two weeks later; 3) usability (missing/ incorrect responses, participant evaluation). RESULTS: Both the magnifier and the two linear scales outperformed the "1 in x" scale on all criteria. The magnifier scale performed about as well as the two linear visual analog scales for validity (correlation between direct and scale-derived rankings = 0.72), reliability (test-retest correlation = 0.55), and usability (2% missing or incorrect responses, 65% rated it easy to use). 62% felt the magnifier scale was a "very good or good" indicator of their feelings about chance. The magnifier scale facilitated expression of low-probability judgments. For example, the estimated chance of parenting sextuplets was orders of magnitude lower on the magnifier scale (median perceived chance 10(-5)) than on its linear counterpart (10(-2)). Participants' assessments of high-probability events (e.g., chance of catching a cold in the next year) were not affected by the presence of the magnifier. CONCLUSIONS: The "1 in x" scale performs poorly and is very difficult for people to use. The magnifier scale and the linear number scale are similar in validity, reliability, and usability. However, only the magnifier scale makes it possible to elicit perceptions in the low-probability range (<1%).

Women's understanding of the mammography screening debate.

BACKGROUND: The fractious public debate over mammography screening recommendations for women aged 40 to 49 years has received extensive attention in medical journals and in the press. OBJECTIVE: To learn how women interpret the mammography screening debate. METHODS: We mailed a survey to a random sample of American women 18 years and older, oversampling women of screening age (40-70 years). Sixty-six percent of women completed the survey (n = 503). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were women's reactions to the debate, their suggestion for the starting age for mammography screening, and their understanding of the source of the debate. RESULTS: Almost all women (95%) said that they had paid some attention to the recent discussion about mammography screening. Only 24% said the discussion had improved their understanding of mammography, while 50% reported being upset by the public disagreement among screening experts. Women's beliefs about mammography differed from those articulated by experts in the debate. Eighty-three percent believed that mammography had proven benefit for women aged 40 to 49 years, and 38% believed that benefit was proven for women younger than 40 years. Most women suggested that mammography screening should begin before age 40 years, while only 5% suggested a first mammogram should be performed at 50 years or older. In response to an open-ended question about why mammography has been controversial, 15% cited concerns about the potential harms of radiation and another 12% cited questions about efficacy. Nearly half (49%), however, identified costs as the major source of debate (eg, "Health maintenance organizations [HMOs] don't want to pay for mammography"). CONCLUSIONS: Most women paid attention to the recent debate about routine mammography screening for women aged 40 to 49 years, but many believed the debate was about money rather than the question of benefit. Policy makers issuing recommendations about implementation of large-scale mammography screening services need to consider how to effectively disseminate their message.