Strategies to Reduce Diagnostic Blood Loss and Anemia in Hospitalized Patients: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Blood sampling is a recognized contributor to hospital-acquired anemia. We aimed to bundle all published neonatal, pediatric, and adult data regarding clinical interventions to reduce diagnostic blood loss. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases were searched for eligible studies from inception until May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently selected studies, using predefined criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted data, including study design, population, period, intervention type and comparator, and outcome variables (diagnostic blood volume and frequency, anemia, and transfusion). DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 16,132 articles identified, we included 39 trials; 12 (31%) were randomized controlled trials. Among six types of interventions, 27 (69%) studies were conducted in adult patients, six (15%) in children, and six (15%) in neonates. Overall results were heterogeneous. Most studies targeted a transfusion reduction ( n = 28; 72%), followed by reduced blood loss ( n = 24; 62%) and test frequency ( n = 15; 38%). Small volume blood tubes ( n = 7) and blood conservation devices ( n = 9) lead to a significant reduction of blood loss in adults (8/9) and less transfusion of adults (5/8) and neonates (1/1). Point-of-care testing ( n = 6) effectively reduced blood loss (4/4) and transfusion (4/6) in neonates and adults. Bundles including staff education and protocols reduced blood test frequency and volume in adults (7/7) and children (5/5). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on interventions to reduce diagnostic blood loss and associated complications is highly heterogeneous. Blood conservation devices and smaller tubes appear effective in adults, whereas point-of-care testing and bundled interventions including protocols and teaching seem promising in adults and children.

Defining vascular anomaly phenotypes in children based on a systematic literature search: A critical step in developing a single severity score for interventional clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Genetically targeted drugs in vascular anomalies (VA) are used despite the absence of a validated severity score. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of grouping phenotypic VA clinical characteristics into a single severity score. METHODS: A systematic literature review including children treated with sirolimus accompanied by a detailed description of phenotype and management was conducted. Demographic data and clinical features were extracted to define distinct categories of phenotypes. RESULTS: Children with VA display two main phenotypes regardless of VA subtype, which may overlap. A systemic phenotype results from direct invasion and compression of vital structures generally leading to hospitalization and aggressive management in infancy. A functional phenotype is associated with chronic pain and disability manifesting mainly during early adolescence and managed in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSION: The two distinct phenotypes described could be the basis for developing a unified scoring system for VA severity assessment.

Systemic, local, and sclerotherapy drugs: What do we know about drug prescribing in vascular anomalies?

Off-label drug prescribing, frequent in the treatment of vascular anomalies (VA), relies on the quality of the literature reporting drug efficacy and safety. Our objective is to review the level of evidence (LOE) surrounding drug use in VA, which is more prevalent in pediatric care. A list of drugs used in VA was created with a literature review in July 2020. For each drug listed, the article displaying the highest LOE was determined and then compared between efficacy/safety data, routes of administration, pharmacological categories and a subset of VA. The influence of research quality on study results was also explored. The median LOE for the 74 drugs identified poor methodological quality, with a predominance of retrospective studies or case reports. Drug safety is currently inadequately reported. This is alarming as many treatments display significant safety concerns. Also, current literature displays major publication bias that probably leads to overestimation of drug efficacy in VA.