Clinical Outcomes, Blood Utilization, and Ethical Considerations for Pediatric Patients in a Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Program.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients requesting bloodless care represent a challenging clinical situation, as parents cannot legally refuse lifesaving or optimal interventions for their children. Here, we report clinical outcomes for the largest series of pediatric inpatients requesting bloodless care and also discuss the ethical considerations. METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective cohort study assessing 196 pediatric inpatients (<18 years of age) who requested bloodless care between June 2012 and June 2016. Patient characteristics, transfusion rates, and clinical outcomes were compared between pediatric patients receiving bloodless care and those receiving standard care (including transfusions if considered necessary by the clinical team) (n = 37,271). Families were informed that all available measures would be undertaken to avoid blood transfusions, although we were legally obligated to transfuse blood if the child's life was threatened. The primary outcome was composite morbidity or mortality. Secondary outcomes included percentage of patients transfused, individual morbid events, length of stay, total hospital charges, and total costs. Subgroup analyses were performed after stratification into medical and surgical patients. RESULTS: Of the 196 pediatric patients that requested bloodless care, 6.1% (n = 12) received an allogeneic blood component, compared to 9.1% (n = 3392) for standard care patients ( P = .14). The most common indications for transfusion were perioperative bleeding and anemia of prematurity. None of the transfusions were administered under a court order. Overall, pediatric patients receiving bloodless care exhibited lower rates of composite morbidity compared to patients receiving standard care (2.6% vs 6.2%; P = .035). There were no deaths in the bloodless cohort. Individual morbid events, length of stay, and total hospital charges/costs were not significantly different between the 2 groups. After multivariable analysis, bloodless care was not associated with a significant difference in composite morbidity or mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.11; P = .077). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients receiving bloodless care exhibited similar clinical outcomes compared to patients receiving standard care, although larger studies with adequate power are needed to confirm this finding. There were no mortalities among the pediatric bloodless cohort. Although a subset of our pediatric bloodless patients received an allogeneic transfusion, no patients required a court order. When delivered in a collaborative and patient-centered manner, blood transfusions can be safely limited among pediatric patients.

Methods of Bloodless Care, Clinical Outcomes, and Costs for Adult Patients Who Decline Allogeneic Transfusions.

BACKGROUND: Providing bloodless medical care for patients who wish to avoid allogeneic transfusion can be challenging; however, previous studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes when appropriate methods are used. Here, we report one of the largest series of patients receiving bloodless care, along with the methods used to provide such care, and the resulting outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 1111 adult inpatients (age ≥18 years) at a single institution who declined allogeneic transfusion for religious or personal reasons between June 2012 and June 2016 were included, and the patient blood management methods are described. Patient characteristics, laboratory data, and transfusion rates, as well as clinical outcomes (morbidity, mortality, and length of stay) were compared to all other patients in the hospital who received standard care, including transfusions if needed (n = 137,009). Medical and surgical patients were analyzed as subgroups. The primary outcome was composite morbidity (any morbid event: infectious, thrombotic, ischemic, renal, or respiratory). Secondary outcomes included individual morbid events, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, total hospital charges, and costs. RESULTS: The bloodless cohort had more females and a lower case mix index, but more preadmission comorbidities. Mean nadir hemoglobin during hospitalization was lower in the bloodless (9.7 ± 2.6 g/dL) compared to the standard care (10.1 ± 2.4 g/dL) group (P < .0001). Composite morbidity occurred in 14.4% vs 16.0% (P = .16) of the bloodless and standard care patients, respectively. Length of stay and in-hospital mortality were similar between the bloodless and standard care patients. After Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons, hospital-acquired infection occurred less frequently in the bloodless compared to the standard care cohort (4.3% vs 8.3%) (P < .0001) in the medical patient subgroup, but not in the surgical subgroup. After propensity score adjustment in a multivariable model and adjustment for multiple comparisons, bloodless care was associated with less risk of hospital-acquired infection (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83; P = .0074) in the medical subgroup, but not in the surgical subgroup. Median total hospital charges (by 8.5%; P = .0017) and costs (by 8.7%; P = .0001) were lower in the bloodless compared to the standard care cohort, when all patients were included. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adult patients receiving bloodless care had similar clinical outcomes compared to patients receiving standard care. Medical (but not surgical) bloodless patients may be at less risk for hospital-acquired infection compared to those receiving standard care. Bloodless care is cost-effective and should be considered as high-value practice.

Risk-adjusted clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in a bloodless program.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical outcomes have been reported for patients who do not accept allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT), many previous studies lack a control group, fail to use risk adjustment, and focus exclusively on cardiac surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We report a risk-adjusted, propensity score-matched, retrospective case-control study of clinical outcomes for inpatients who did not accept ABT (bloodless, n = 294) and those who did accept ABT (control, n = 1157). Multidisciplinary specialized care was rendered to the bloodless patients to conserve blood and optimize clinical outcomes. Differences in hemoglobin (Hb), mortality, five morbid outcomes, and hospital charges and costs were compared. Subgroups of medical and surgical patients were analyzed, and independent predictors of outcome were determined by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Overall, mortality was lower in the bloodless group (0.7%) than in the control group (2.7%; p = 0.046), primarily attributed to the surgical subgroup. After risk adjustment, bloodless care was not an independent predictor of the composite adverse outcome (death or any morbid event; p = 0.91; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.53). Discharge Hb concentrations were similar in the bloodless (10.8 ± 2.7 g/dL) and control (10.9 ± 2.3 g/dL) groups (p = 0.42). Total and direct hospital costs were 12% (p = 0.02) and 18% (p = 0.02) less, respectively, in the bloodless patients, a difference attributed to the surgical subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Using appropriate blood conservation measures for patients who do not accept ABT results in similar or better outcomes and is associated with equivalent or lower costs. This specialized care may be beneficial even for those patients who accept ABT.