Is a preoperative group and save necessary for enhanced recovery joint replacement patients?

AIM: To consider the financial benefit to the authors' trust of omitting a preoperative group and save in enhanced recovery arthroplasty patients, and to estimate the scope for national savings. Patient safety was considered to determine acceptability for routine practice. METHODS: A total of 121 patients receiving a total knee replacement or total hip replacement on the authors' enhanced recovery protocol were selected. Pre- and postoperative haemoglobin levels were obtained. The transfusion team were contacted when the postoperative haemoglobin level was ≤8 g/dl to determine whether blood products had been issued. Costs for group and save were obtained from the pathology department. RESULTS: Mean postoperative reduction in haemoglobin level was 2.6 g/dl (P≤0.001) and 2.1 g/dl (P≤0.001) for total hip replacement and total knee replacement respectively. No patients were transfused. One group and save costs £12.00, and omission of this test in these patients would have saved £1452.00. Potentially, £1 605 408 could have been saved in the 133 784 patients undergoing NHS arthroplasty in 2012. Group and save omission would not affect management of intraoperative haemorrhage where O negative blood would be available. If a transfusion is required postoperatively it would take 100 minutes to issue crossmatched blood - a time delay unlikely to compromise patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a preoperative group and save could be omitted in arthroplasty patients on this enhanced recovery programme to prevent needless expenditure, but more long-term follow up is required to ensure patients are not put at risk.

Blood transfusion requirement for gastric cancer surgery: reasonable preparation for transfusion in the comprehensive health insurance system.

We investigated the necessity of preparation for blood transfusion in gastric cancer surgery to save costs for blood typing, antibody screening, cross-matching, and disposal of the blood product. The subjects of the study were 52 patients who underwent gastric cancer surgery at our department between 2000 and 2004. The requirement for blood transfusion during surgery was investigated in terms of patient characteristics, hemoglobin before surgery, and performance status as well as treatment regimen. Furthermore, economic effects were investigated when typing and screening (T&S) were performed instead of typing and cross-matching (T&X). Of 9 patients who received blood transfusion, 8 had gastric cancer of stage IIIB or higher, or underwent combined resection. Blood transfusion was not used in surgery for patients with early gastric cancer. The volumes of blood prepared, lost, and disposed of in 28 patients who underwent T&X were 831.3+/-249.4, 219.3+/-228.5 and 600+/-333.1 ml, respectively, whereas the blood loss in 24 patients who underwent T&S was 161.1+/-95.6 ml; this difference had a major economic effect. The practice of T&S for patients undergoing gastric surgery in the absence of combined resection for early gastric cancer seems to be a safe and cost-effective practice that abrogates disposal of blood in hospital management.

Thirty-day typing and screening for patients undergoing elective surgery: experience at a large cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative testing in patients scheduled to undergo surgery often includes determining the ABO group and Rh type and screening for atypical alloantibodies in blood samples. AABB recommends obtaining blood samples within 3 days of transfusion. This was extended to 30 days to minimize the number of phlebotomies, avoid delays in providing blood during surgery, and decrease the laboratory workload. This study was conducted to show that extending the expiration date of the preoperative blood sample for blood typing and screening to 30 days will serve our purpose and provide better patient care. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected for all patients undergoing elective surgery with perioperative blood samples submitted to our blood bank over 31 months. Each patient completed a questionnaire to determine whether his or her samples qualified for a 30-day preoperative clot. The questionnaires were validated upon preoperative screening. A transfusion medicine physician made the final determination regarding whether the samples qualified for 30-day typing and screening. These blood samples were used for cross-matching to find compatible blood during surgery. RESULTS: A total of 12,310 preoperative blood samples were received with a request for typing and screening, 4,370 (35.5%) of which qualified for a 30-day expiration date. No significant problems were encountered with these blood samples. CONCLUSION: Extension of the preoperative clot expiration date from 3 to 30 days has improved service to our patients and their physicians and indirectly reduced the laboratory workload.

[Necessity for blood transfusion in head and neck surgery]. / Notwendigkeit der Bluttransfusion bei ausgewählten Operationen im Kopf-Hals-Bereich.

INTRODUCTION: Sometimes, use of blood products is necessary in head and neck surgery, but blood transfusion also entails risks for the patients and causes high costs for the department. Therefore, we examined the surgical procedures in our department and analysed how often transfusion of blood was necessary and which expenses were incurred. METHODS: Of 3989 operations performed in 1989, 187 patients were found to be at an increased risk for blood loss. The costs for blood group analysis (euro 23.16), cross-testing (euro 13.91) and the transfusion itself (euro 70.35) were estimated in each patient. RESULTS: In 1998 more than 60% of the 187 patients had undergone extensive head and neck surgery for advanced squamous cell carcinoma. Only 17 patients (<15%) received nearly 45% of all units of stored blood transfused that year. In patients who had undergone skull base surgery, the probability of receiving blood was 30%. The transfusion-related costs were estimated to be euro 20,000 during the observation period. Potential savings could have been achieved in cross-testing. CONCLUSION: Preparations should be done on an individual basis. Such preparations are sometimes unnecessary even in patients undergoing surgical procedures with a high risk for blood loss.

[Type and Screen: immunohematological safety is ensured and costs are lowered]. / "Type and screen": die immunhämatologische Sicherheit ist gewährleistet und die Kosten werden gesenkt.

UNLABELLED: TYPE AND SCREEN: (T + S) means: no routine cross match before transfusion. ABO- and Rh-(Blgr) blood groups (type) are done and irregular allo-antibodies are sought (screen). If screen is negative, instant saline test (IST) or Blgr control, and if screen is positive, conventional cross match is done. GOALS: Are all clinically relevant antibodies discovered with T + S? Are laboratory costs lower? METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study over more than 3 years. Blgr and cross match were done in tubes and AB screen and antibody identification (panel) were sought using the gel-test (DiaMed) with bromelin (enz) and LISS antiglobulin test (IAT). Underlying all testing were the directives of the Swiss blood donation services. RESULTS: Enzyme-only positive antibodies are not relevant for blood transfusion, as shown by our data from more than 10000 comparisons of enz- and IAT-screens. 32 patients with positive enz-antibodies and negative cross match were transfused without problems. The enz-screen was abandoned for more than 12 months' follow-up in more than 20000 transfused patients. Before using the T + S, one unit of transfused RBC needed (on average) 3.7 cross matches, and after introduction of T + S only 0.3. Although the number of T + S increased significantly, we effectively saved some CHF 280000 per year.