2013. Documento Sevilla de Consenso sobre Alternativas a la Transfusión de Sangre Alogénica. Actualización del Documento Sevilla / The 2013 Seville Consensus Document on alternatives to allogenic blood transfusion. An update on the Seville Document

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)

[The 2013 Seville Consensus Document on alternatives to allogenic blood transfusion. An update on the Seville Document]. / 2013. Documento Sevilla de Consenso sobre Alternativas a la Transfusión de Sangre Alogénica. Actualización del Documento Sevilla.

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.

[Assessment strategies of the impact of healing touch in nursing care]. / Strategie d'evaluation de l'impact du toucher dans les soins infirmiers.

New care methods have emerged in the last few years. Healing Touch is relaxing and as such, helps prepare the patient for the medical act, the pain of which he may often feel anxious about As they foster confidence between the patient and the medical practitioner, such practices create better conditions for the medical care act to be performed. Even if there is no doubt about its impact on the patient, the effect of Healing Touch has never been scientifically assessed, and the only available references are rather scarce. This is the reason why we wished to assess the impact of this care in a number of clinical situations through a randomised clinical experiment. The object of this paper is to assert the efficacy of such care on the patient, especially on pain relief and the decrease of anxiety. To this end, authenticated assessment scales were used, such as the visual analog pain scale or Spielberg's test anxiety inventory. A prospective multicentre randomised study was carried out to create a control group to be compared to the group treated with Healing Touch. Only willing patients who were prescribed healing touch were included in the experiment. Patients with cognitive problems - be they temporary (linked to a temporary clinical conditions) or not - or those suffering from some disabilities preventing them from using assessment scales and questionnaires are excluded. The recruitment of a 784-patient panel was needed to set out the 8 situations in which a Healing Touch indication may be effective.