Liver transplant with controlled donors after circulatory death with normothermic regional perfusion and brain dead donors: A multicenter cohort study of transfusion, one-year graft survival and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) has expanded the donor pool for liver transplantation (LT). However, transfusion requirements and perioperative outcomes should be elucidated. The aim of this multicenter study was to assess red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, one-year graft and patient survival after LT after cDCD with normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) compared with donors after brain death (DBD). METHODS: 591 LT carried out in ten centers during 2019 were reviewed. Thromboelastometry was used to manage coagulation and blood product transfusion in all centers. Normothermic regional perfusion was the standard technique for organ recovery. RESULTS: 447 patients received DBD and 144 cDCD with NRP. Baseline MCF Extem was lower in the cDCD group There were no differences in the percentage of patients (63% vs. 61% p = 0.69), nor in the number of RBC units transfused (4.7 (0.2) vs 5.5 (0.4) in DBD vs cDCD, p = 0.11. Twenty-six patients (6%) died during admission for LT in the DBD group compared with 3 patients (2%) in the cDCD group (p = 0.15). To overcome the bias due to a worse coagulation profile in cDCD recipients, matched samples were compared. No differences in baseline laboratory data, or in intraoperative use of RBC or one-year outcome data were observed between DBD and cDCD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: cDCD with NRP is not associated with increased RBC transfusion. No differences in graft and patient survival between cDCD and DBD were found. Donors after controlled circulatory death with NRP can increasingly be utilized with safety, improving the imbalance between organ donors and the ever-growing demand.

Calidad del registro escrito del médico anestesiólogo durante la transferencia de pacientes postoperados: influencia de la aplicación de una herramienta de comunicación estructurada / Quality of the anesthesiologist written record during the transfer of postoperative patients: Influence of implementing a structured communication tool

Objetivo. La falta de comunicación es una de las principales causas de errores asistenciales, especialmente durante la transferencia de pacientes entre profesionales y/o unidades asistenciales; la normalización de la comunicación es una práctica recomendada. En nuestro estudio hemos querido valorar si la aplicación de la herramienta estructurada de comunicación SBAR podría influir sobre la calidad de la información escrita en la hoja de evolución por el anestesiólogo implicado en la transferencia del paciente posquirúrgico. Material y métodos. Se trata de un estudio observacional, retrospectivo, aleatorizado, de revisión de la calidad del registro escrito realizado por el médico anestesiólogo durante la transferencia de pacientes desde el área quirúrgica a la unidad de reanimación postoperatoria, mediante la aplicación de un listado validado. Se evaluaron 3 periodos de observación: un periodo control de 2 meses del año 2011 (preSBAR) y un segundo periodo de 2 meses en 2012 (postSBAR), en este último con 2 grupos de pacientes transferidos con (postSBAR+) o sin SBAR (postSBAR−). Resultados. La fuerza de concordancia entre los evaluadores obtuvo un coeficiente de correlación interclase de 0,8459 (p < 0,001). Existían diferencias significativas en función del grupo estudiado, con mayor puntuación media en el grupo con SBAR (grupo postSBAR+: media ± DE 7,56 ± 1,20 frente a grupo postSBAR−: 5,41 ± 2,98; p < 0,001) y en función de que el anestesiólogo responsable de la intervención participara en el estudio (media ± DE: 7,00 ± 1,99; frente a 4,81 ± 3,24 en los no participantes; p < 0,001) (AU)

Objective. The lack of communication is a major cause of health care errors, especially during patient transfer between practitioners and/or healthcare units, when standardization of communication is a recommended practice. In our study we wanted to assess whether the application of the structured communication SBAR tool could influence the quality of the information written on the progress sheet by the anesthesiologist involved in the transfer of the patient after surgery. Material and methods. This is an observational, retrospective, randomized, quality review of the written record made by the anesthesiologist during the transfer of patients from the surgical area to the postoperative recovery unit, by applying a validated list. We evaluated three observation periods: a control period of two months in 2011 (preSBAR) and a second period of two months in 2012 (postSBAR); in the latter two groups of patients were transferred (postSBAR +) or without SBAR (postSBAR−). Results. The strength of agreement between raters obtained an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.8459 (p <0.001). There were significant differences in the study group, with highest average score in the group with SBAR (postSBAR + group: mean ± SD 7.56 ± 1.20 versus postSBAR-group: 5.41 ± 2.98, p <0.001) and depending on the anesthesiologist responsible for the intervention participated in the study (mean ± SD: 7.00 ± 1.99, compared to 4.81 ± 3.24 in the non-participants, p <0.001). Conclusions. There was an improvement in the quality of written records made in 2012 during the implementation of the SBAR, without the actual application of this instrument appearing to influence it. The anesthesiologists that were involved in new forms of patient safety were also those who made written records of highest quality (AU)

[Quality of the anesthesiologist written record during the transfer of postoperative patients: Influence of implementing a structured communication tool]. / Calidad del registro escrito del médico anestesiólogo durante la transferencia de pacientes postoperados: influencia de la aplicación de una herramienta de comunicación estructurada.

OBJECTIVE: The lack of communication is a major cause of health care errors, especially during patient transfer between practitioners and/or healthcare units, when standardization of communication is a recommended practice. In our study we wanted to assess whether the application of the structured communication SBAR tool could influence the quality of the information written on the progress sheet by the anesthesiologist involved in the transfer of the patient after surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is an observational, retrospective, randomized, quality review of the written record made by the anesthesiologist during the transfer of patients from the surgical area to the postoperative recovery unit, by applying a validated list. We evaluated three observation periods: a control period of two months in 2011 (preSBAR) and a second period of two months in 2012 (postSBAR); in the latter two groups of patients were transferred (postSBAR +) or without SBAR (postSBAR-). RESULTS: The strength of agreement between raters obtained an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.8459 (p <0.001). There were significant differences in the study group, with highest average score in the group with SBAR (postSBAR + group: mean ± SD 7.56 ± 1.20 versus postSBAR-group: 5.41 ± 2.98, p <0.001) and depending on the anesthesiologist responsible for the intervention participated in the study (mean ± SD: 7.00 ± 1.99, compared to 4.81 ± 3.24 in the non-participants, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was an improvement in the quality of written records made in 2012 during the implementation of the SBAR, without the actual application of this instrument appearing to influence it. The anesthesiologists that were involved in new forms of patient safety were also those who made written records of highest quality.