Preceding haemorrhagic shock as a detrimental risk factor for respiratory distress after excessive allogeneic blood transfusion.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Whether transfusion-associated circulatory overload arises as a simple result of over-transfusion or requires another trigger remains unclear. Here, we examined whether respiratory distress could be reproduced by massive transfusion alone in an animal model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 anaesthetized swine were equipped with monitors. Allogeneic blood was obtained from 10 donor swine. A 4-stage loading protocol with each stage equivalent to 25% of the blood volume (BV) in the recipient swine was then used to infuse crystalloid (CR), hydroxyethyl starch (HES) or allogeneic blood (TR) (n = 5 each). The five remaining animals were subjected to a haemorrhagic shock (HS) prior to an allogeneic blood transfusion (TRS). RESULTS: The PaO2 /FiO2 (P/F) ratio did not decrease to the level of respiratory distress in either the CR group or the HES group after loading with a volume corresponding to 100% of the recipient BV. However, the TRS and TR groups exhibited significant reductions in the P/F ratio after fluid overloading (227 ± 29 and 267 ± 133, respectively). Blood transfusion after HS expanded the blood volume, but over-transfusion alone did not. HS was accompanied by an increase in the white blood cell count. CONCLUSION: The lung and the heart can tolerate volume overloads with HES, CR and even transfused blood. However, a preceding HS may induce an inflammatory response, making the lung vulnerable to subsequent blood overloads. In this study, a preceding haemorrhagic shock mediated respiratory distress following massive transfusion in a swine model. (247 words).

Cerebrovascular Accident Rate Is Different Between Centrifugal and Axial-Flow Pumps, but Survival and Driveline Infection Rates Are Similar.

OBJECTIVES: We analyzed the outcome of patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) at the University of Tokyo Hospital to compare those with centrifugal pumps (CE group: Duraheart and Evaheart) and those with axial-flow pumps (AX group: Heartmate II and Jarvik 2000). METHODS: A total of 68 patients who underwent implantation of LVADs (Duraheart: n = 15; Evaheart: n = 23; Heartmate II: n = 22; Jarvik 2000: n = 8) as a bridge to transplantation at our institution from May 2011 to April 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were followed through December 2015. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time of the CE group was 1.95 ± 0.92 year (total 74.1 patient-years) and that of the AX group was 1.56 ± 0.56 year (total 46.8 patient-years). Whether the patients underwent centrifugal or axial-flow pump implantations was not associated with survival or driveline infection according to log-rank test (1-year survival rate: 89% vs 100% [P = .221]; 1-year freedom rate: 40% vs 43% [P = .952]). The rates of freedom from cerebrovascular accident (CVA) at 1 year after LVAD implantation in the CE and AX groups were 70% and 96%, respectively (P < .001). The CE group showed a higher frequency of CVA (0.472 vs 0.021 event per patient-year). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that overall survival and driveline infection rates are similar between centrifugal and axial-flow pumps, but they suggest that patients with centrifugal pumps are more likely to develop CVAs than those with axial-flow pumps.