Should the cell saver autotransfusion system be routinely used in elective aortic surgery?

The objective of this study is to identify the aortic surgery procedures in which the use of the Cell Saver autotransfusion system is beneficial in terms of the amount of autologous blood recovered and the reduction in blood bank demands. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the system is also presented. Four hundred and thirty-four elective aortic interventions were retrospectively reviewed to examine the use of intraoperative autotransfusion (IAT). Evaluation was made of risk factors, preoperative hematological variables, the volume of IAT-processed reinfused blood, and homologous transfusion requirements over the period of hospitalization. The routine use of the IAT system was cost-effective in the interventions for AAA and TAA. In patients subjected to aortobifemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease, IAT served to alleviate demands on blood bank inventories, although in our center its use led to a slight increase in net cost. The routine use of IAT during unilateral revascularization due to occlusive disease offered no benefits in terms of reduced homologous transfusion requirements or cost-effectiveness.

Intraoperative autologous transfusion during elective infrarenal aortic reconstruction: a decision analysis model.

PURPOSE: The use of intraoperative autologous transfusion devices expanded during the last decade as a result of the increased awareness of transfusion-associated complications. This study was designed to determine whether routine use of an intraoperative autologous transfusion device (Haemonetics Cell Saver [CS]) during elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions is cost-effective ($50,000/QALYs threshold). METHODS: A decision analysis tree was constructed to model all of the complications that are associated with red blood cell replacement during aortic reconstructions for both abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). It was assumed that a unit of CS return (CSR; 250 ml/unit) equaled a unit of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) and that all CS transfusions were necessary. Transfusion requirements (AAA:PRBC = 2.8 +/- 3.2 units, CSB = 3.7 +/- 3.2 units; AIOD:PRBC = 3.1 +/- 3.0 units, CSR = 2.1 +/- 1.7 units) were determined from retrospective review of all elective aortic reconstructions (AAA, N = 63; AIOD, N = 75) from Jan. 1991 to June 1995 in which the CS was used (82.1% of all reconstructions). Risk of allogenic transfusion-related complications (transfusion reaction, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, human immunodeficiency virus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus types I and II) and their associated treatment costs (expressed in dollars and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from the medical literature, institutional audit, and a consensus of physicians. RESULTS: Routine use of the CS during elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions was not cost-effective in our practice. Use during reconstructions for AAA repairs cost $263.75 but added only 0.00218 QALYs, for a rate of $120,794/QALY. Use during reconstructions for AIOD was even more costly at $356.68 and provided even less benefit at 0.00062 QALYs, for a rate of $578,275/QALY. The sensitivity analyses determined that the routine use of the CS would be cost-effective in our practice only for AAA repairs if the incidence of hepatitis C were tenfold greater than the baseline assumption. The model determined that CS was cost-effective if the CSR exceed 5 units during reconstructions for AAA and 6 units during reconstructions for AIOD. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of the CS during elective infrarenal aortic reconstructions is not cost-effective. The use of the device should be reserved for a select group of aortic reconstructions, including those in which cost-effective salvage volumes are anticipated. Alternatively, the CS should be used as a reservoir and activated as a salvage device if significant bleeding is encountered.