The practice of diagnosing and reporting transfusion-associated circulatory overload: a national survey among physicians and haemovigilance officers.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims at identifying factors that disciplines consider when diagnosing and reporting transfusion-associated circulatory overload ('TACO'). BACKGROUND: TACO is a clinical diagnosis based mainly on subjective factors. Therefore, TACO could be an underreported complication of blood transfusion. METHODS: A survey was conducted among critical care physicians, anaesthesiologists, haematologists, transfusion medicine physicians and haemovigilance officers using case vignettes and a questionnaire. Factors that may affect diagnosing TACO were investigated using conjoint analysis. A positive B-coefficient indicates a positive preference for diagnosing TACO. Participants rated factors influencing reporting TACO on a 0- to 100-point scale. RESULTS: One hundred and seven surveys were returned (62%). Vignettes showed preferences in favour of diagnosing TACO with the onset of symptoms within 2 h [ß 0·4(-0·1-1·0)], positive fluid balance [ß 0·9(0·4-1·5)] and history of renal failure [ß 0·6(0·1-1·2)]. Compared with transfusion of a single unit of red blood cells (RBC), respondents showed a preference for diagnosing TACO following a single unit of solvent/detergent (S/D) plasma or pooled platelet concentrate (PPC) [ß 0·3(-0·2-0·7) resp. 0·5(-0·1-1·2)]. Multiple transfusion (6 RBC + 4 S/D plasma) was a strong preference for diagnosing TACO compared to 1 RBC and 1 S/D plasma [ß 0·3(-0·8-1·3)]. Respondents did not fully take into account new hypertension and tachycardia when reporting TACO [median 70 (IQR 50-80) resp. 60 (IQR 50-80)]. No differences were observed between disciplines involved. CONCLUSION: When diagnosing and reporting TACO, physicians and haemovigilance officers do consider known risk factors for TACO. Reporting could be improved by increasing the awareness of haemodynamic variables in future education programmes.

The practice of platelet transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in presence of coagulopathy: a national survey among clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Correction of coagulopathy prior to central venous catheter (CVC) placement is advocated by guidelines, while retrospective studies support restrictive use of transfusion products. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a mixed vignette and questionnaire web survey to investigate current practice and preferences for CVC placement. Clinical vignettes were used to quantify the tendency to administer platelet concentrate. A positive ß-coefficient is in favour of administering platelet concentrate. RESULTS: Ninety-seven physicians answered the survey questions (36 critical care physicians, 14 haematologists, 20 radiologists and 27 anaesthesiologist). Eighty-six physicians subsequently completed the clinical vignettes (response rate 71%). Preferences in favour of correcting thrombocytopenia prior CVC placement were platelet counts of 10 × 109 /L and 20 × 109 /L (ß = 3·9; ß = 3·2, respectively), the subclavian insertion site (ß = 0·8). An elevated INR (INR = 3; ß = 0·6) and an elevated aPTT (aPTT = 60 s; ß = 0·4) showed a positive trend towards platelet transfusion. Platelet transfusion was less likely in an emergency setting (ß = -0·4). Reported transfusion thresholds for CVC placement varied from <10 × 109 /L to 80 × 109 /L for platelet count, from 1·0 to 10·0 for INR and from 25 s to 150 s for aPTT. Implementation of ultrasound guidance as standard practice was limited. CONCLUSION: Current transfusion practice prior to CVC placement is highly variable. Physicians adjust the decision to correct coagulopathy prior CVC placement based on clinical parameters, insertion site and technique applied.