An assessment of the necessity of transfusion during pancreatoduodenectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative transfusion of packed red blood cells (PRBC) has been associated with negative side effects. We hypothesized that a majority of transfusions in our series of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were unnecessary. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine whether transfusions were indicated based on pre-determined criteria, and the impact of perioperative transfusions on postoperative outcomes was assessed. METHODS: Our prospectively maintained database was queried for patients who underwent PD between 2004 and 2011. 200 patients were divided into Cohort 1 (no transfusion) and Cohort 2 (transfusion). Rates of various graded 90-day postoperative complications were compared. Categorical values were compared according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. All cases involving intraoperative blood transfusion were reviewed for associated blood loss, intraoperative vital signs, urine output, hemoglobin values, and presence or absence of EKG changes to determine whether the transfusion was indicated based on these criteria. RESULTS: There were 164 patients (82%) in Cohort 1 (no transfusion) and 36 patients (18%) in Cohort 2 (transfused). Both groups had similar demographics. Patients in Cohort 2 had lesser median preoperative values of hemoglobin (12.3 vs 13.1, P = .002), a greater incidence of vein resection (33% vs. 16%, P = .021), longer operative times (518 vs 440 minutes, P < .0001), a greater estimated blood loss (850 vs. 300 mL, P < .001), and greater intraoperative fluid resuscitation (6,550 vs. 5,300 mL, P = .002). Ninety-day mortality was similar between the 2 groups (3% vs 1%, P = .328). Patients in Cohort 2 (transfused) had increased rates of delayed gastric emptying (36% vs. 20%, P = .031), wound infection (28% vs. 7%, P = .031), pulmonary complications (6% vs. 0%, P = .032), and urinary retention (6% vs. 0%, P = .032). A greater incidence of any complication of grade II severity (67% vs. 35%, P = .0005) or grade III severity (36% vs. 17%, P = .010) was also noted in Cohort 2. Of the 33 intraoperative transfusions, 15 (46%) did not meet any of the predetermined criteria: intraoperative hypotension (<90/60 mmHg), tachycardia (>110 beats per minute), low urine output (<10 mL/hour), decreased oxygen saturation (<95%), excessive blood loss (>1,000 mL), EKG changes, and low hemoglobin (<7.0 g/dL). CONCLUSION: Perioperative transfusions among patients with PD were associated with increased rates of various postoperative complications. A substantive portion (∼46%) of perioperative transfusions in this patient population did not meet predetermined criteria, indicating a potential opportunity for improved blood product use. Further prospective studies are required to determine whether the implementation of these criteria may a positive impact on perioperative outcomes.

Early intensive care unit mobility therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE: Immobilization and subsequent weakness are consequences of critical illness. Despite the theoretical advantages of physical therapy to address this problem, it has not been shown that physical therapy initiated in the intensive care unit offers benefit. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study in a university medical intensive care unit that assessed whether a mobility protocol increased the proportion of intensive care unit patients receiving physical therapy vs. usual care. PATIENTS: Medical intensive care unit patients with acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation on admission: Protocol, n = 165; Usual Care, n = 165. INTERVENTIONS: An intensive care unit Mobility Team (critical care nurse, nursing assistant, physical therapist) initiated the protocol within 48 hrs of mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving physical therapy in patients surviving to hospital discharge. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Outcome data are reflective of survivors. More Protocol patients received at least one physical therapy session than did Usual Care (80% vs. 47%, p < or = .001). Protocol patients were out of bed earlier (5 vs. 11 days, p < or = .001), had therapy initiated more frequently in the intensive care unit (91% vs. 13%, p < or = .001), and had similar low complication rates compared with Usual Care. For Protocol patients, intensive care unit length of stay was 5.5 vs. 6.9 days for Usual Care (p = .025); hospital length of stay for Protocol patients was 11.2 vs. 14.5 days for Usual Care (p = .006) (intensive care unit/hospital length of stay adjusted for body mass index, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, vasopressor). There were no untoward events during an intensive care unit Mobility session and no cost difference (survivors + nonsurvivors) between the two arms, including Mobility Team costs. CONCLUSIONS: A Mobility Team using a mobility protocol initiated earlier physical therapy that was feasible, safe, did not increase costs, and was associated with decreased intensive care unit and hospital length of stay in survivors who received physical therapy during intensive care unit treatment compared with patients who received usual care.