Small-volume tubes to reduce anemia and transfusion (STRATUS): a pilot study.

PURPOSE: Blood sampling for diagnostic testing causes blood loss. Small-volume tubes have the same cost, dimensions, and blood-draw techniques as standard-volume tubes, and are compatible with laboratory equipment; however, they are not commonly used. We sought to assess the feasibility of a stepped-wedge cluster trial to determine whether small-volume tubes reduce transfusion compared with standard-volume tubes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective mixed-methods pilot study (before-after design) in one ICU with a six-week control period (standard-volume tubes) and a six-week intervention period (small-volume tubes). All patients admitted to the ICU were included. Feasibility was assessed as successful switch to small-volume tubes; adherence to tube size; sufficient volume for testing; user acceptance; barriers and facilitators to implementation; and 95% transfusion collection. We explored end-user acceptability using focus groups. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five patients were included in the standard-volume and 204 in the small-volume periods. Transition to small-volume tubes was successful. Random audits showed 100% compliance. The proportion of samples with inadequate volume for testing was the same for both groups (both, 0.2%). Based on ten focus groups, small-volume tubes were acceptable with no barriers identified. Transfusion data collection was 100%. Median [interquartile range] estimated blood loss due to laboratory testing per patient per day in ICU was 11 [8-17] mL with standard-volume and 6 [4-8] mL with small-volume tubes. CONCLUSION: Small-volume tubes can be implemented with acceptability to end-users and without barriers. They did not result in an increased frequency of inadequate samples. These results inform a trial to determine whether small-volume tubes reduce transfusion. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03284944); registered 15 September 2017.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les prélèvements sanguins pour les tests diagnostiques provoquent des pertes de sang. Les tubes de prélèvement de petit volume entraînent le même coût, ont les mêmes dimensions et nécessitent les mêmes techniques de prélèvement sanguin que les tubes de volume standard, en plus d'être compatibles avec l'équipement de laboratoire; cependant, ils ne sont pas couramment utilisés. Nous avons cherché à évaluer la faisabilité d'un essai clinique à intervention échelonnée visant à déterminer si les tubes de petit volume réduisaient la transfusion par rapport aux tubes de volume standard chez les patient·es de l'unité de soins intensifs (USI). MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude pilote prospective à méthodes mixtes (conception avant-après) dans une unité de soins intensifs, avec une période de contrôle de six semaines (tubes de volume standard) et une période d'intervention de six semaines (tubes de petit volume). Tou·tes les patient·es admis·es à l'USI ont été inclus·es. La faisabilité a été évaluée comme étant la transition réussie vers des tubes de petit volume; le respect de la taille du tube; un volume suffisant pour les tests sanguins; l'acceptation de l'utilisateur·trice; les obstacles et les facilitateurs à la mise en œuvre; et une collecte de données de transfusion de 95 %. Nous avons exploré l'acceptabilité par l'utilisateur·trice final·e à l'aide de groupes de discussion. RéSULTATS: Cent soixante-cinq patient·es ont été inclus·es dans le groupe volume standard et 204 dans les groupes pour la période de petit volume. La transition vers des tubes de petit volume a été couronnée de succès. Les audits aléatoires ont montré une observance de 100 %. La proportion d'échantillons dont le volume était insuffisant pour l'analyse était la même dans les deux groupes (0,2 % dans les deux cas). D'après dix groupes de discussion, les tubes de faible volume étaient acceptables et aucun obstacle n'a été identifié. La collecte de données transfusionnelles était de 100 %. Les pertes de sang médianes estimées [écart interquartile] dues aux tests de laboratoire par patient·e et par jour à l'USI étaient de 11 [8 à 17] mL avec un volume standard et de 6 [4 à 8] mL avec des tubes de petit volume. CONCLUSION: Les tubes de petit volume peuvent être mis en œuvre en étant acceptés par les utilisateur·trices et sans obstacles. Ils n'ont pas entraîné une augmentation de la fréquence des échantillons inadéquats. Ces résultats procurent des informations pour une étude visant à déterminer si les tubes de petit volume réduisent la transfusion. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03284944); enregistré le 15 septembre 2017.

Continuous Noninvasive Remote Automated Blood Pressure Monitoring With Novel Wearable Technology: A Preliminary Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Wearable continuous monitoring biosensor technologies have the potential to transform postoperative care with early detection of impending clinical deterioration. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to validate the accuracy of Cloud DX Vitaliti continuous vital signs monitor (CVSM) continuous noninvasive blood pressure (cNIBP) measurements in postsurgical patients. A secondary aim was to examine user acceptance of the Vitaliti CVSM with respect to comfort, ease of application, sustainability of positioning, and aesthetics. METHODS: Included participants were ≥18 years old and recovering from surgery in a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU). We targeted a maximum recruitment of 80 participants for verification and acceptance testing. We also oversampled to minimize the effect of unforeseen interruptions and other challenges to the study. Validation procedures were according to the International Standards Organization (ISO) 81060-2:2018 standards for wearable, cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices. Baseline BP was determined from the gold-standard ICU arterial catheter. The Vitaliti CVSM was calibrated against the reference arterial catheter. In static (seated in bed) and supine positions, 3 cNIBP measurements, each 30 seconds, were taken for each patient with the Vitaliti CVSM and an invasive arterial catheter. At the conclusion of each test session, captured cNIBP measurements were extracted using MediCollector BEDSIDE data extraction software, and Vitaliti CVSM measurements were extracted to a secure laptop through a cable connection. The errors of these determinations were calculated. Participants were interviewed about device acceptability. RESULTS: The validation analysis included data for 20 patients. The average times from calibration to first measurement in the static position and to first measurement in the supine position were 133.85 seconds (2 minutes 14 seconds) and 535.15 seconds (8 minutes 55 seconds), respectively. The overall mean errors of determination for the static position were -0.621 (SD 4.640) mm Hg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 0.457 (SD 1.675) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Errors of determination were slightly higher for the supine position, at 2.722 (SD 5.207) mm Hg for SBP and 2.650 (SD 3.221) mm Hg for DBP. The majority rated the Vitaliti CVSM as comfortable. This study was limited to evaluation of the device during a very short validation period after calibration (ie, that commenced within 2 minutes after calibration and lasted for a short duration of time). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the Cloud DX's Vitaliti CVSM demonstrated cNIBP measurement in compliance with ISO 81060-2:2018 standards in the context of evaluation that commenced within 2 minutes of device calibration; this device was also well-received by patients in a postsurgical ICU setting. Future studies will examine the accuracy of the Vitaliti CVSM in ambulatory contexts, with attention to assessment over a longer duration and the impact of excessive patient motion on data artifacts and signal quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03493867; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03493867.