Promoting a Restrictive Intraoperative Transfusion Strategy: The Influence of a Transfusion Guideline and a Novel Software Tool.

BACKGROUND: The effect of neither transfusion guidelines nor decision support tools on intraoperative transfusion has been previously evaluated. The University of Michigan introduced a transfusion guideline in 2009, and in 2011, the Department of Anesthesiology developed a transfusion decision support tool. The primary aim of this study was to assess the associations of the transfusion guideline and the optional use of the software transfusion tool with intraoperative behaviors; pretransfusion hematocrit assessment (whether or not a hematocrit was checked before each red cell unit) and restrictive red cell use (withholding transfusion unless the hematocrit was ≤21%). METHODS: This was a before-after retrospective study without a concurrent control group of patients transfused 1-3 units of red cells intraoperatively. Three phases were studied to provide data both before and after the implementation of the transfusion guideline and the intraoperative software tool. Within each phase, trends of checking hematocrits before transfusion and restrictive transfusion were charted against time. F tests were used to measure differences of slopes. The difference between means of each phase was measured using Mann-Whitney U tests. Independent associations were measured using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. A secondary outcome analysis was conducted for 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, renal injury, and their combination. RESULTS: The transfusion guideline was associated with increased pretransfusion hematocrit evaluation (67.4%, standard deviation [SD] 3.9 vs 76.5%, SD 2.7; P < .001) and restrictive transfusion practice (14.0%, SD 7.4 vs 33.3%, SD 4.4; P = .001). After adjustment for confounders, the guideline phase was independently associated with increased hematocrit checking (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.03; P < .001) and restrictive red cell transfusion (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.54; P < .001). The software tool was not associated with either transfusion behavior. There was no significant change in the rate of renal injury (16.06%), myocardial injury (4.93%), 30-day mortality (5.47%), or a composite (21.90%). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a transfusion guideline was independently associated with increased intraoperative pretransfusion hematocrit assessment and restrictive transfusion. The use of a software tool did not further influence either behavior.

Adherence to Analgesics for Cancer Pain: A Comparative Study of African Americans and Whites Using an Electronic Monitoring Device.

Despite well-documented disparities in cancer pain outcomes among African Americans, surprisingly little research exists on adherence to analgesia for cancer pain in this group. We compared analgesic adherence for cancer-related pain over a 3-month period between African Americans and whites using the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). Patients (N = 207) were recruited from outpatient medical oncology clinics of an academic medical center in Philadelphia (≥18 years of age, diagnosed with solid tumors or multiple myeloma, with cancer-related pain, and at least 1 prescription of oral around-the-clock analgesic). African Americans reported significantly greater cancer pain (P < .001), were less likely than whites to have a prescription of long-acting opioids (P < .001), and were more likely to have a negative Pain Management Index (P < .001). There were considerable differences between African Americans and whites in the overall MEMS dose adherence, ie, percentage of the total number of prescribed doses that were taken (53% vs 74%, P < .001). On subanalysis, analgesic adherence rates for African Americans ranged from 34% (for weak opioids) to 63% (for long-acting opioids). Unique predictors of analgesic adherence varied by race; income levels, analgesic side effects, and fear of distracting providers predicted analgesic adherence for African Americans but not for whites. Perspective: Despite evidence of disparities in cancer pain outcomes among African Americans, surprisingly little research exists on African Americans' adherence to analgesia for cancer pain. This prospective study uses objective measures to compare adherence to prescribed pain medications between African American and white patients with cancer pain.