The efficacy of pre-operative preparation with intravenous iron and/or erythropoietin in anaemic patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pre-operative anaemia and transfusion are common among patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. Application of 'patient blood management' might be the most effective way to reduce both anaemia and transfusion. Pre-operative administration of iron and/or erythropoietin (EPO) is one of the cornerstones of the first pillar of patient blood management, but in a daily clinical setting, efficacy and long-term safety of this measure have not been analysed thoroughly to date. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of pre-operative preparation (PREP) of patients with iron and/or EPO on peri-operative transfusion needs and long-term survival. DESIGN: Single-centre, retrospective study. SETTING: Anaesthesia department, University hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Pre-operative preparation with iron and/or EPO versus no preparation. METHODS: After approval of our local ethics committee, data of 5518 patients who received total hip or total knee replacement between 2008 and 2014 were included. Patients receiving iron and/or EPO were included in the PREP group, whereas patients without iron and/or EPO were included in the no preparation group. From the full data set, a bias-reduced subset of 662 patients was obtained by means of propensity score-matching to compare peri-operative red blood cell utilisation and long-term survival of patients between groups. RESULTS: Patients in the PREP group needed a lower number of units of red blood cells than patients in the no preparation group (0.2 ±â€Š0.8 vs. 0.5 ±â€Š1.3, P < 0.001), had a lower transfusion rate (12 vs. 24%, P < 0.05) and had a similar haemoglobin concentration (10.7 ±â€Š1.3 vs. 10.6 ±â€Š1.1 g dl, not significant) at discharge. No differences in long-term survival were observed between the two study groups. CONCLUSION: PREP of patients with iron and/or EPO in orthopaedic patients can be considered highly effective in terms of transfusion reduction, without influencing long-term survival.

Six percent hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (Voluven®) versus 5% human serum albumin for volume replacement therapy during elective open-heart surgery in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Although 5% albumin (human serum albumin [HSA]) is widely used in cardiac surgery children, synthetic colloids may provide a valuable alternative. This study compared 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 with HSA for volume replacement in this population. METHODS: The study was a two-center, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, double-blind trial performed in children aged 2-12 yr undergoing elective surgery for congenital heart disease under extracorporeal circulation. The primary objective was to demonstrate equivalence between HES and HSA with regard to the total volume of colloid infusion for intraoperative volume replacement including priming of the extracorporeal circuitery. RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, mean volume of colloid required until end of surgery was (mean ± SD) 36.6 ± 11.8 ml/kg body weight in the HES group (N = 29) and 37.0 ± 11.9 ml/kg body weight in the HSA group (N = 26; ratio of means HES/HSA = 0.98 [95% CI, 0.84-1.16]). Intraoperative fluid balance was less positive in the HES group (P = 0.047). No difference was found regarding hemodynamics, the use of vasoactive and inotropic drugs. Blood loss, erythrocytes transfusion, and renal function were not different between groups. The incidence of adverse events up to postoperative day 28 did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric cardiac surgery, HES showed equivalence to HSA with regard to volume replacement therapy in children aged from 2 to 12 yr. Although there was no suggestion of an imbalance of safety measures between HES and HSA, the study was not powered to provide any firm conclusions about safety of tetrastarch in this population.

Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently finally determined in laboratory settings by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rt-PCR). However, simple testing with immediately available results are crucial to gain control over COVID-19. The aim was to evaluate such a point-of-care antigen rapid test (AG-rt) device in its performance compared to laboratory-based rt-PCR testing in COVID-19 suspected, symptomatic patients. METHODS: For this prospective study, two specimens each of 541 symptomatic female (54.7%) and male (45.3%) patients aged between 18 and 95 years tested at five emergency departments (ED, n = 296) and four primary healthcare centres (PHC, n = 245), were compared, using AG-rt (positive/negative/invalid) and rt-PCR (positive/negative and cycle threshold, Ct) to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR+/-) of the AG-rt were assessed. RESULTS: Differences between ED and PHC were detected regarding gender, age, symptoms, disease prevalence, and diagnostic performance. Overall, 174 (32.2%) were tested positive on AG-rt and 213 (39.4%) on rt-PCR. AG correctly classified 91.7% of all rt-PCR positive cases with a sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 99.1%, PPV of 98.3, NPV of 88.6%, LR(+) of 87.8, and LR(-) of 0.20. The highest sensitivities and specificities of AG-rt were detected in PHC (sensitivity: 84.4%, specificity: 100.0%), when using Ct of 30 as cut-off (sensitivity: 92.5%, specificity: 97.8%), and when symptom onset was within the first three days (sensitivity: 82.9%, specificity: 99.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The highest sensitivity was detected with a high viral load. Our findings suggest that AG-rt are comparable to rt-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 suspected symptomatic patients presenting both at emergency departments and primary health care centres.