Red Blood Cell Transfusion in the Emergency Department: An Observational Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in the emergency department (ED) with a particular focus on the hemoglobin (Hb) level thresholds that are used in this setting. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 12 EDs including all adult patients that received RBC transfusion in January and February 2018. Descriptive statistics were reported. Logistic regression was performed to assess variables that were independently associated with a pre-transfusion Hb level ≥ 8 g/dL. RESULTS: During the study period, 529 patients received RBC transfusion. The median age was 74 (59-85) years. The patients had a history of cancer or hematological disease in 185 (35.2%) cases. Acute bleeding was observed in the ED for 242 (44.7%) patients, among which 145 (59.9%) were gastrointestinal. Anemia was chronic in 191 (40.2%) cases, mostly due to vitamin or iron deficiency or to malignancy with transfusion support. Pre-transfusion Hb level was 6.9 (6.0-7.8) g/dL. The transfusion motive was not notified in the medical chart in 206 (38.9%) cases. In the multivariable logistic regression, variables that were associated with a higher pre-transfusion Hb level (≥8 g/dL) were a history of coronary artery disease (OR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.29-3.41), the presence of acute bleeding (OR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.53-3.94), and older age (OR: 1.02/year; 95% CI: 1.01-1.04). CONCLUSION: RBC transfusion in the ED was an everyday concern and involved patients with heterogeneous medical situations and severity. Pre-transfusion Hb level was rather restrictive. Almost half of transfusions were provided because of acute bleeding which was associated with a higher Hb threshold.

Blood pressure measurements on a bare arm, over a sleeve or below a rolled-up sleeve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Several guidelines call for blood pressure (BP) measurement on a bare arm, which is not always easy. This systematic review aims to synthesize existing evidence concerning the effect of a sleeve on BP measurement. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase were searched for cross-sectional studies comparing BP values measured on a bare arm, over a sleeve or below a rolled-up sleeve. A meta-analysis was conducted on available data. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were selected from 720 references. All studies reported office BP values, 12 compared measurements on a bare arm and on a sleeve, and four also performed measurements below a rolled-up sleeve, with heterogeneous sleeve types and thicknesses. Most studies had a high risk of bias. Three studies showed a small overestimation of BP measured over a sleeve, but the remaining 10 studies did not find statistically significant differences between measurements. Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant 0.59 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to +1.30; P = 0.10] overestimation of SBP measured over a sleeve when the thinnest sleeve was considered for studies that investigated various thicknesses, a nonsignificant 1.10 mmHg (95% CI -0.21 to +2.40; P = 0.10) overestimation of SBP when the thickest sleeve was considered, and a nonsignificant 2.76 mmHg (95% CI -0.96 to +6.47; P = 0.15) overestimation of SBP measured below a rolled-up sleeve. CONCLUSION: Measuring BP over a thick sleeve in the office may result in a small overestimation of recorded values but measuring over a thin sleeve does not appear to have a significant impact and, in any case, should be preferred to rolling it up.