ABSTRACT
La transfusión de sangre alogénica (TSA) no es inocua, y como consecuencia han surgido múltiples alternativas a la misma (ATSA). Existe variabilidad respecto a las indicaciones y buen uso de las ATSA. Dependiendo de la especialidad de los médicos que tratan a los pacientes, el grado de anemia, la política transfusional, la disponibilidad de las ATSA y el criterio personal, estas se usan de forma variable. Puesto que las ATSA tampoco son inocuas y pueden no cumplir criterios de coste-efectividad, la variabilidad en su uso es inaceptable. Las sociedades españolas de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR), Hematología y Hemoterapia(SEHH), Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH), Medicina Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias(SEMICYUC), Trombosis y Hemostasia (SETH) y Transfusiones Sanguíneas (SETS) han elaborado un documento de consenso para el buen uso de la ATSA. Un panel de expertos de las 6sociedades ha llevado a cabo una revisión sistemática de la literatura médica y elaborado el 2013. Documento Sevilla de Consenso sobre Alternativas a la Transfusión de Sangre Alogénica. Solo se contempla las ATSA dirigidas a disminuir la transfusión de concentrado de hematíes. Se definen las ATSA como toda medida farmacológica y no farmacológica encaminada a disminuir la transfusión de concentrado de hematíes, preservando siempre la seguridad del paciente. La cuestión principal que se plantea en cada ítem se formula, en forma positiva o negativa, como: La ATSA en cuestión reduce/no reduce la tasa transfusional». Para formular el grado de recomendación se ha usado la metodología Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) (AU)
Since allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) is not harmless, multiple alternatives to ABT (AABT) have emerged, though there is great variability in their indications and appropriate use. This variability results from the interaction of a number of factors, including the specialty of the physician, knowledge and preferences, the degree of anemia, transfusion policy, and AABT availability. Since AABTs are not harmless and may not meet cost-effectiveness criteria, such variability is unacceptable. The Spanish Societies of Anesthesiology (SEDAR), Hematology and Hemotherapy (SEHH), Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH), Critical Care Medicine (SEMICYUC), Thrombosis and Hemostasis (SETH)and Blood Transfusion (SETS) have developed a Consensus Document for the proper use of AABTs. A panel of experts convened by these 6 Societies have conducted a systematic review of the medical literature and have developed the 2013 Seville Consensus Document on Alternatives to Allogeneic Blood Transfusion, which only considers those AABT aimed at decreasing the transfusion of packed red cells. AABTs are defined as any pharmacological or non-pharmacological measure aimed at decreasing the transfusion of red blood cell concentrates, while preserving patient safety. For each AABT, the main question formulated, positively or negatively, is: Does this particular AABT reduce the transfusion rate or not? All the recommendations on the use of AABTs were formulated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) methodology (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Blood Transfusion, Autologous , Blood Transfusion/methods , Blood Substitutes/therapeutic use , Anemia/therapy , Glycated Hemoglobin/therapeutic use , Fibrinogen/therapeutic use , Practice Patterns, Physicians'ABSTRACT
Since allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) is not harmless, multiple alternatives to ABT (AABT) have emerged, though there is great variability in their indications and appropriate use. This variability results from the interaction of a number of factors, including the specialty of the physician, knowledge and preferences, the degree of anemia, transfusion policy, and AABT availability. Since AABTs are not harmless and may not meet cost-effectiveness criteria, such variability is unacceptable. The Spanish Societies of Anesthesiology (SEDAR), Hematology and Hemotherapy (SEHH), Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH), Critical Care Medicine (SEMICYUC), Thrombosis and Hemostasis (SETH) and Blood Transfusion (SETS) have developed a Consensus Document for the proper use of AABTs. A panel of experts convened by these 6 Societies have conducted a systematic review of the medical literature and have developed the 2013 Seville Consensus Document on Alternatives to Allogeneic Blood Transfusion, which only considers those AABT aimed at decreasing the transfusion of packed red cells. AABTs are defined as any pharmacological or non-pharmacological measure aimed at decreasing the transfusion of red blood cell concentrates, while preserving patient safety. For each AABT, the main question formulated, positively or negatively, is: « Does this particular AABT reduce the transfusion rate or not?¼ All the recommendations on the use of AABTs were formulated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
Subject(s)
Blood Transfusion/standards , Complementary Therapies , Humans , Patient Safety , Surgical Procedures, OperativeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of topical anesthesia and retrobulbar anesthesia for cataract surgery by lens emulsification. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred sixty patients were randomized to two groups in this open clinical trial. Patients with cataracts that could not be treated by lens emulsification were excluded. Group I patients (n = 129) received 0.5% tetracaine drops and intravenous fentanyl and propofol, along with continuous sedation. Group II patients (n = 131) received 2% lidocaine in the retrobulbar space and hypnotic doses of intravenous propofol before retrobulbar injection. The anesthesiologist evaluated anesthesia negatively if SpO2 was 90% and either heart rate or blood pressure varied more than 20%. The ophthalmologist evaluated anesthesia negatively if the eye did not remain fixed in the center, if blepharospasm appeared or if the anterior chamber of the eye collapsed. The patient reported the intensity of any discomfort experienced on a six-point scale. Anesthesia was determined to be effective when favorable evaluations were given by both the anesthesiologist and the ophthalmologist and when no significant discomfort (first three points on the scale) was reported by the patient. The two treatment groups were compared using a single and multiple factor analysis. RESULTS: Group II experienced significantly fewer instances of ineffective anesthesia than did group I (8 versus 22) and fewer negative evaluations by the ophthalmologists (7 versus 18). More patients in group I reported discomfort than in group II (46 versus 9), although most complaints were of slight discomfort. Multiple factor analysis showed that a patient in group I had 4.64 more chances of experiencing ineffective anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Topical anesthesia is less effective than retrobulbar anesthesia for cataract surgery by lens emulsification.