ABSTRACT
Hemostasis products, such as SURGICEL®, have been increasingly used across a wide variety of surgical procedures to mitigate bleeding-related risks and complications. This retrospective observational study described the utilization pattern of the SURGICEL® family of oxidized regenerated cellulose products (SURGICEL® ORIGINAL, SURGICEL® FIBRILLAR™, SURGICEL SNoW®) in a large, vertically integrated healthcare system, by utilizing electronic medical records (EMR) extracted from August 2013 through June 2015 at Henry Ford Health System (HFHS). Descriptive measurements were compared between SURGICEL® ORIGINAL and advanced SURGICEL® products (SURGICEL® FIBRILLAR™ and SURGICEL SNoW®) for pooled common surgical procedures. Among 1471 patients, 450 received SURGICEL® ORIGINAL, and 1021 received advanced SURGICEL® products. A significantly greater proportion of patients given advanced SURGICEL® products had comorbidities (91.0% vs 85.6%, p=.0024), prior bleeding conditions (49.9% vs 30.9%, p<.0001), and prior use of anticoagulants (27.7% vs 5.3%, p<.0001). Advanced SURGICEL® products were more likely to be used in coronary artery bypass grafting (13.7% vs 1.6%, p<.0001). Among a sub-set of 1420 patients with complete package size information (988 Advanced and 432 ORIGINAL), significantly fewer mean normalized units of Advanced SURGICEL® were used per patient case (3.9 vs 5.5, p<.0001). Despite Advanced SURGICEL® products being utilized in higher risk bleeding situations compared to cases where SURGICEL® ORIGINAL was utilized, fewer overall normalized units of Advanced SURGICEL® were required per patient case. Further research is needed to investigate the implications of topical hemostat use in continuous oozing bleeding situations on outcomes, hospital costs, and resources.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) is a collaboration between CDC and nine integrated health care systems that serves as a cornerstone of US post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring. Given concerns that potential differences between the insured VSD population and the US population could limit the generalizability of VSD study findings, we performed a comparison of the demographic characteristics between the two populations. METHODS: We collected data from medical records and administrative files at VSD sites in 2010 to compare sex, age, race, ethnicity, income, and educational attainment to the 2010 US Census population. We also compared data on the 2012 VSD Medicaid population to 2012 US Medicaid data. RESULTS: The VSD population included over eight million individuals in 2010, which represented 2.6% of the total US population. All major demographic groups were represented in the VSD. We found no major differences in comparing sex, race, ethnicity, and educational attainment between the VSD and the US population. Middle income populations were comparable between the VSD and the US. While the percentage of lower income populations was less in the VSD compared to the US, the VSD had over two million individuals in this group. Additionally, there were over 600,000 Medicaid members in the VSD in 2012, which represented 1.1% of the US Medicaid population. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the VSD population is representative of the general US population on several key demographic and socioeconomic variables. Despite a few specific groups being underrepresented in the VSD compared to the US, the absolute number of VSD members is large enough to ensure significant representation of these groups in vaccine safety studies that use VSD data.
