HemoCue Hb-801 Provides More Accurate Hemoglobin Assessment in Blood Donors Than OrSense NBM-200.

Hemoglobin levels are commonly assessed to prevent causing or worsening of anemia in prospective blood donors. We compared head-to-head the accuracy of different technologies for measuring hemoglobin suitable for use in mobile donation units. We included 144 persons donating platelets at the Central Institute for Blood Transfusion and Immunology in Innsbruck, Austria. Hemoglobin levels were measured in venous blood using the portable hemoglobinometer HemoCue Hb-801 and noninvasively using OrSense NBM-200, and compared to values obtained with the Sysmex XN-430, an automated hematology analyzer employing the sodium lauryl sulphate method, which is broadly used as reference method in everyday clinical practice. Mean age of participants was 34.2 years (SD 13.0); 34.0% were female. Hemoglobin values measured with HemoCue were more strongly correlated with the Sysmex XN-430 (r = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.87-0.93]) than measured with OrSense (r = 0.49 [0.35-0.60]). On average, HemoCue overestimated hemoglobin by 0.40 g/dL (0.31-0.48) and OrSense by 0.75 g/dL (95% CI: 0.54-0.96). When using OrSense, we found evidence for higher overestimation at higher hemoglobin levels (proportional bias) specifically in females but not in males (Pdifference = .003). Sensitivity and specificity for classifying donors according to the hemoglobin donation thresholds were 99.2% (95% CI: 95.3%-100.0%) and 43.8% (23.1%-66.8%) for HemoCue vs 95.3% (89.9%-98.0%) and 12.5% (2.2%-37.3%) for OrSense. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were higher using HemoCue vs OrSense both in females (0.933 vs 0.547; P = .044) and males (0.948 vs 0.628; P < .001). HemoCue Hb-801 measures hemoglobin more accurately than OrSense NBM-200 in the setting of mobile blood donation units. Our findings are particularly relevant for females, having in mind that anemia is more prevalent in females than in males.

Liver Transplantation in Recipients With a Positive Crossmatch: A Retrospective Single-Center Match-Pair Analysis.

A positive crossmatch (XM+) is considered a contraindication to solid abdominal organ transplantation except liver transplantation (LT). Conflicting reports exist regarding the effects of XM+ on post-transplant outcomes. The goal of this retrospective single-center analysis is to evaluate the influence of XM+ on relevant outcome parameters such as survival, graft rejection, biliary and arterial complications. Forty-nine adult patients undergoing LT with a XM+ between 2002 and 2017 were included. XM+ LT recipients were matched 1:2 with crossmatch negative (XM-) LT recipients based on the balance of risk (BAR) score. Patient and graft survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes in XM+ and XM- groups were conducted. Patient and graft survival were similar in XM+ and XM- patients. Rejection episodes did not differ either. Recipients with a strong XM+ were more likely to develop a PCR+ CMV infection. A XM+ was not associated with a higher incidence of biliary or arterial complications. Donor age, cold ischemia time, PCR+ CMV infection and a rejection episode were associated with the occurrence of ischemic type biliary lesions. A XM+ has no effects on patient and graft survival or other relevant outcome parameters following LT.

Inflammatory and coagulatory parameters linked to survival in critically ill children with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is associated with a deflection of inflammatory and coagulative parameters, since some clotting factors are known to be involved in the host's defense against infection and inflammation. These parameters could play a crucial role in the course of sepsis and be used as prognostic markers in critically ill children. METHODS: A total of 250 critically ill pediatric patients diagnosed with sepsis were retrospectively analyzed to identify routinely measured predictors for in-hospital mortality at the peak level of C-reactive protein. Those parameters entered multivariate logistic regression analysis as well as a decision tree for survival. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed fibrinogen, platelets and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) at the peak level of C-reactive protein to be predictors for survival (p = 0.03, p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). An increase in fibrinogen and platelets is linked to survival, whereas an aPTT prolongation is associated with higher mortality; adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for an increase of 100 mg/dl in fibrinogen are 1.35 (1.04-1.82) per 50 G/l platelets 1.94 (1.3-3.29) and 0.83 (0.69-0.96) for an aPTT prolongation of 10 s. Decision tree analysis shows that a fibrinogen level below 192 mg/dl (90.9% vs. 13% mortality) is most distinctive in non-survivors. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of fibrinogen and platelets as well as a non-overshooting aPTT are associated with a higher survival rate in pediatric patients with diagnosed sepsis. In particular, hypofibrinogenemia is distinctive for a high mortality rate in septic critically ill children.

Short overview on the current standard of treatment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma has changed dramatically over the past 20 years, from near uniform application of chemotherapy to a patient performance status- and risk-based approach. Furthermore, initiation of treatment criteria have evolved from a pure end-organ damage-based definition to include risk factors of transformation to frank myeloma. Besides, the mainly cytogenetically defined Multiple Myeloma (MM) risk status, transplant eligibility of patients still serves primarily to allocate patients within a rational treatment algorithm. While all transplant-eligible MM patients should receive a triplet induction therapy followed by autologous transplantation and, in most cases, lenalidomide maintenance, other therapeutic elements (e. g., other maintenance strategies, consolidation, tandem transplantation,..) have to be decided on an individualized appraisal of risk and toxicities. Standard-risk patients should never be undertreated, as they derive the highest relative benefit from using the best available registered therapies. However, high-risk patients should be preferentially treated inside clinical trials testing additive innovative treatments, as the improvement in the prognosis of this group of patients by standard therapies has been underwhelming. Furthermore, the evaluation process of non-transplant-eligible patients should always comprise an evaluation of performance status, frailty, and comorbidities (e. g., a comprehensive geriatric assessment) to facilitate the allocation of individualized therapies.

Realizing patient-centered care: putting patients in the center, not the middle.

In these challenging times, healthcare executives must make difficult decisions when setting goals and allocating resources within their organizations. Patient-centered care means putting the patient in the center, not in the middle. Hospitals should view the world through the patient's and organize care around the patient. Investing in patient-centered care as an expression of mission, vision, and values is the right thing to do and has the potential to increase patient volumes and revenue. Realizing patient-centered care requires shared understanding, top leadership that can own and embrace the vision, engaged caregivers, and involved patients. There is an undeniable element of customer service in patient-centered care: Lessons from the retail industry can take us beyond merely meeting expectations to exceeding them.