Nonclinical factors affecting intraoperative red blood cell transfusion: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: There is significant variability in intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practice. We aimed to use the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to categorize nonclinical and behavioural factors driving intraoperative RBC transfusion practice in a systematic review of the literature. SOURCE: We searched electronic databases from inception until August 2021 to identify studies evaluating nonclinical factors affecting intraoperative RBC transfusion. Using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, we assessed the quality of included studies and identified relevant nonclinical factors, which were coded into TDF domains by two independent reviewers using NVivo (Lumivero, QSR International, Burlington, MA, USA). We identified common themes within domains and sorted domains based on the frequency of reported factors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our systematic review identified 18 studies: nine retrospective cohort studies, six cross-sectional surveys, and three before-and-after studies. Factors related to the social influences, behavioural regulation, environmental context/resources, and beliefs about consequences domains of the TDF were the most reported factors. Key factors underlying the observed variability in transfusion practice included the social effects of peers, patients, and institutional culture on decision-making (social influences), and characteristics of the practice environment including case volume, geographic location, and case start time (environmental context/resources). Studies reported variable beliefs about the consequences of both intraoperative transfusion and anemia (beliefs about consequences). Provider- and institutional-level audits, educational sessions, and increased communication between surgeons/anesthesiologists were identified as strategies to optimize intraoperative transfusion decision-making (behavioural regulation). CONCLUSION: Our systematic review has synthesized the literature on nonclinical and behavioural factors impacting intraoperative transfusion decision-making, categorized using the TDF. These findings can inform evidence-based interventions to reduce intraoperative RBC transfusion variability. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/pm8zs/?view_only=166299ed28964804b9360c429b1218c1 ; first posted, 3 August 2022).

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Il existe une variabilité importante dans les pratiques de transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins. Nous avons cherché à utiliser le cadre des domaines théoriques (TDF, pour theoretical domains framework) pour catégoriser les facteurs non cliniques et comportementaux motivant les pratiques de transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins dans une revue systématique de la littérature. SOURCES: Nous avons réalisé des recherches dans les bases de données électroniques de leur création jusqu'en août 2021 pour identifier les études évaluant les facteurs non cliniques affectant la transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins. À l'aide de l'outil d'évaluation des méthodes mixtes, nous avons évalué la qualité des études incluses et identifié les facteurs non cliniques pertinents, qui ont été codés dans les domaines TDF par deux personnes les révisant de manière indépendante utilisant NVivo (Lumivero, QSR International, Burlington, MA, États-Unis). Nous avons identifié des thèmes communs au sein des domaines et trié les domaines en fonction de la fréquence des facteurs signalés. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Notre revue systématique a identifié 18 études : neuf études de cohorte rétrospectives, six sondages transversaux et trois études avant-après. Les facteurs liés aux influences sociales, à la régulation comportementale, au contexte et aux ressources environnementaux et les croyances concernant les domaines de conséquences du TDF étaient les facteurs les plus rapportés. Les principaux facteurs sous-jacents à la variabilité observée dans la pratique transfusionnelle comprenaient les effets sociaux des pairs, de la patientèle et de la culture de l'établissement sur la prise de décision (influences sociales) et les caractéristiques de l'environnement de pratique, y compris le volume de cas, l'emplacement géographique et l'heure de début des cas (contexte/ressources environnementaux). Des études ont fait état de croyances variables sur les conséquences de la transfusion peropératoire et de l'anémie (croyances sur les conséquences). Des vérifications au niveau des prestataires et des établissements, des séances de formation et une communication accrue entre les chirurgien·nes et les anesthésiologistes ont été identifiées comme des stratégies pouvant optimiser la prise de décision transfusionnelle peropératoire (régulation comportementale). CONCLUSION: Notre revue systématique a synthétisé la littérature sur les facteurs non cliniques et comportementaux ayant une incidence sur la prise de décision transfusionnelle peropératoire, classés à l'aide du TDF. Ces résultats peuvent éclairer les interventions fondées sur des données probantes pour réduire la variabilité de transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/pm8zs/?view_only=166299ed28964804b9360c429b1218c1 ; soumis pour la première fois, 3 août 2022).

Accuracy of point-of-care testing devices for haemoglobin in the operating room: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCT) for haemoglobin are increasingly used to guide intraoperative transfusion. However, their accuracy compared to central laboratory tests is unknown. The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of method comparison studies assessing the accuracy of POCT versus central laboratory haemoglobin tests in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2020 (updated August 2023). Any methodological approach comparing haemoglobin measurements between POCT and central laboratory in patients undergoing surgery under anaesthesia in the operating room were included. Data abstraction was guided by PRISMA and risk of bias was assessed by QUADAS-2. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Outcomes included mean differences between POCT and central laboratory haemoglobin with associated standard deviations and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). RESULTS: Of 3057 citations, 34 studies were included (n = 2427, 6857 paired measurements). Several devices were compared (pulse co-oximetry, n = 25; HemoCue, n = 10; iSTAT, n = 6; blood gas analysers, n = 10; haematology analyser, n = 2). Median sample size was 41 patients, and 11 studies were funded by device manufacturers. Fifteen of 34 studies had low risk of bias. Pooled mean differences (95% LOA) were: pulse co-oximeters 2.3 g/l (-25.2-29.8), HemoCue -0.3 g/l (-11.1-10.5), iSTAT -0.3 g/l (-8.4-7.8) and blood gas analysers -2.6 g/l (-17.8-12.7). CONCLUSION: All POCT examining intraoperative haemoglobin measurement yielded pooled mean difference LOAs larger than the allowable limit difference of ±4 g/dl. Intraoperative haemoglobin measured by POCT should not be considered interchangeable with central laboratory values and caution is necessary when using these tests to guide intraoperative transfusion.

Intraoperative Blood Management Strategies for Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: The Ottawa Intraoperative Transfusion Consensus.

Importance: There is marked variability in red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during the intraoperative period. The development and implementation of existing clinical practice guidelines have been ineffective in reducing this variability. Objective: To develop an internationally endorsed consensus statement about intraoperative transfusion in major noncardiac surgery. Evidence Review: A Delphi consensus survey technique with an anonymous 3-round iterative rating and feedback process was used. An expert panel of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and transfusion medicine specialists was recruited internationally. Statements were informed by extensive preparatory work, including a systematic reviews of intraoperative RBC guidelines and clinical trials, an interview study with patients to explore their perspectives about intraoperative transfusion, and interviews with physicians to understand the various behaviors that influence intraoperative transfusion decision-making. Thirty-eight statements were developed addressing (1) decision-making (interprofessional communication, clinical factors, procedural considerations, and audits), (2) restrictive transfusion strategies, (3) patient-centred considerations, and (4) research considerations (equipoise, outcomes, and protocol suspension). Panelists were asked to score statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was established with at least 75% agreement. Findings: The 34-member expert panel (14 of 33 women [42%]) included 16 anesthesiologists, 11 surgeons, and 7 transfusion specialists; panelists had a median of 16 years' experience (range, 2-50 years), mainly in Canada (52% [17 of 33]), the US (27% [9 of 33]), and Europe (15% [5 of 33]). The panel recommended routine preoperative and intraoperative discussion between surgeons and anesthesiologists about intraoperative RBC transfusion as well as postoperative review of intraoperative transfusion events. Point-of-care hemoglobin testing devices were recommended for transfusion guidance, alongside an algorithmic transfusion protocol with a restrictive hemoglobin trigger; however, more research is needed to evaluate the use of restrictive triggers in the operating room. Expert consensus recommended a detailed preoperative consent discussion with patients of the risks and benefits of both anemia and RBC transfusion and routine disclosure of intraoperative transfusion. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were recommended as the most relevant outcomes associated with intraoperative RBC transfusion, and transfusion triggers of 70 and 90 g/L were considered acceptable hemoglobin triggers to evaluate restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies, respectively, in clinical trials. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement offers internationally endorsed expert guidance across several key domains on intraoperative RBC transfusion practice for noncardiac surgical procedures for which patients are at medium or high risk of bleeding. Future work should emphasize knowledge translation strategies to integrate these recommendations into routine clinical practice and transfusion research activities.

Understanding Intraoperative Transfusion Decision-Making Variability: A Qualitative Study.

There is evidence of significant intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion variability that cannot be explained by case-mix, and may reflect unwarranted transfusions. The objective was to explore the source of intraoperative RBC transfusion variability by eliciting the beliefs of anesthesiologists and surgeons that underlie transfusion decisions. Interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted to identify beliefs about intraoperative transfusion. Content analysis was performed to group statements into domains. Relevant domains were selected based on frequency of beliefs, perceived influence on transfusion, and the presence of conflicting beliefs within domains. Of the 28 transfusion experts recruited internationally (16 anesthesiologists, 12 surgeons), 24 (86%) were Canadian or American and 11 (39%) identified as female. Eight relevant domains were identified: (1) Knowledge (insufficient evidence to guide intraoperative transfusion), (2) Social/professional role and identity (surgeons/anesthesiologists share responsibility for transfusions), (3) Beliefs about consequences (concerns about morbidity of transfusion/anemia), (4) Environmental context/resources (transfusions influenced by type of surgery, local blood supply, cost of transfusion), (5) Social influences (institutional culture, judgment by peers, surgeon-anesthesiologist relationship, patient preference influencing transfusion decisions), (6) Behavioral regulation (need for intraoperative transfusion guidelines, usefulness of audits and educational sessions to guide transfusion), (7) Nature of the behaviors (overtransfusion remains commonplace, transfusion practice becoming more restrictive over time), and (8) Memory, attention, and decision processes (various patient and operative characteristics are incorporated into transfusion decisions). This study identified a range of factors underlying intraoperative transfusion decision-making and partly explain the variability in transfusion behavior. Targeted theory-informed behavior-change interventions derived from this work could help reduce intraoperative transfusion variability.

Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-2): study protocol for a phase 3 randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in liver surgery are areas of concern for surgeons, anesthesiologists, and patients alike. While various methods are employed to reduce surgical blood loss, the evidence base surrounding each intervention is limited. Hypovolemic phlebotomy, the removal of whole blood from the patient without volume replacement during liver transection, has been strongly associated with decreased bleeding and RBC transfusion in observational studies. This trial aims to investigate whether hypovolemic phlebotomy is superior to usual care in reducing RBC transfusions in liver resection. METHODS: This study is a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial. Adult patients undergoing major hepatic resections for any indication will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either hypovolemic phlebotomy and usual care or usual care alone. Exclusion criteria will be minor resections, preoperative hemoglobin <100g/L, renal insufficiency, and other contraindication to hypovolemic phlebotomy. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients receiving at least one allogeneic RBC transfusion unit within 30 days of the onset of surgery. Secondary outcomes will include transfusion of other allogeneic blood products, blood loss, morbidity, mortality, and intraoperative physiologic parameters. The surgical team will be blinded to the intervention. Randomization will occur on the morning of surgery. The sample size will comprise 440 patients. Enrolment will occur at four Canadian academic liver surgery centers over a 4-year period. Ethics approval will be obtained at participating sites before enrolment. DISCUSSION: The results of this randomized control trial will provide high-quality evidence regarding the use of hypovolemic phlebotomy in major liver resection and its effects on RBC transfusion. If proven to be effective, this intervention could become standard of care in liver operations internationally and become incorporated within perioperative patient blood management programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03651154 . Registered on August 29 2018.

Patient perspectives on intraoperative blood transfusion: A qualitative interview study with perioperative patients.

BACKGROUND: While red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are frequently administered during surgery, little is known about patient perspectives regarding intraoperative transfusion. The aim of this study was to understand patient perspectives about intraoperative RBC transfusion and explore their willingness to engage in transfusion prevention strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This descriptive qualitative study used semi-structured patient interviews before and after surgery. Purposive sampling was used to select adult patients with varying perioperative courses, including having perioperative transfusion or postoperative anemia. Inductive and deductive thematic analyses were conducted to identify themes. RESULTS: Twenty patients (nine preoperative and 11 postoperative patients) were interviewed. The following themes were identified: Risk-benefit perception of transfusion, transfusion acceptance, trust, patient involvement in transfusion decisions, acceptance of transfusion prevention interventions, and communication. Patients perceived transfusions as low-risk compared to the surgery itself. Factors influencing transfusion acceptance included trust in the healthcare system and the perception of the treatability of transfusion-related complications. Some patients preferred to defer transfusion decision making to the perioperative team, citing trust in professional judgment and building a positive relationship with their surgeon. Others wished for their preferences to be incorporated into transfusion decisions. Some desired detailed blood consent conversations and most were willing to participate in strategies to reduce intraoperative transfusion. CONCLUSION: In our sample, patients consider intraoperative transfusions as low-risk high-reward interventions and trust the healthcare system and perioperative team to guide intraoperative transfusion decision making. However, preoperative transfusion consent discussions were recalled as being superficial and lacking nuance. Targeted strategies are required to improve blood consent discussions to better integrate patient preferences.

Should Cell Salvage Be Used in Liver Resection and Transplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of intraoperative blood cell salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) use on red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and postoperative outcomes in liver surgery. BACKGROUND: Intraoperative RBC transfusions are common in liver surgery and associated with increased morbidity. IBSA can be utilized to minimize allogeneic transfusion. A theoretical risk of cancer dissemination has limited IBSA adoption in oncologic surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2021. All studies comparing IBSA use with control in liver surgery were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently, in duplicate. The primary outcome was intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion (proportion of patients and volume of blood transfused). Core secondary outcomes included: overall survival and disease-free survival, transfusion-related complications, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one observational studies were included (16 transplant, 5 resection, n=3433 patients). Seventeen studies incorporated oncologic indications. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic RBC transfusion [mean difference -1.81, 95% confidence interval (-3.22, -0.40), P =0.01, I 2 =86%, very-low certainty]. Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. No significant difference existed in overall survival or disease-free survival in liver transplant [hazard ratio (HR)=1.12 (0.75, 1.68), P =0.59, I 2 =0%; HR=0.93 (0.57, 1.48), P =0.75, I 2 =0%] and liver resection [HR=0.69 (0.45, 1.05), P =0.08, I 2 =0%; HR=0.93 (0.59, 1.45), P =0.74, I 2 =0%]. CONCLUSION: IBSA may reduce intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion without compromising oncologic outcomes. The current evidence base is limited in size and quality, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.

The impact of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infections in pancreatic resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) cause significant morbidity. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may promote wound healing and decrease SSI. The objective is to evaluate the effect of prophylactic NPWT on SSI in patients undergoing pancreatectomy. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception until April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic NPWT to standard dressings in patients undergoing pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome was the risk of SSI. Secondary outcomes included the risk of superficial and deep SSI and organ space infection (OSI). Random effects models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four single-centre RCTs including 309 patients were identified. Three studies were industry-sponsored, and two were at high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in the risk of SSI in patients receiving NPWT vs. control (14% vs. 21%, RR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.32-1.60, p = 0.42, I2 = 53%). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the risk of superficial and deep SSI or OSI. No significant difference was found on subgroup analysis of patients at high risk of wound infection or on sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic NPWT does not significantly decrease the risk of SSI among patients undergoing pancreatectomy. Insufficient evidence exists to justify the routine use of NPWT.

Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Elective Bowel Resection Before and After Implementation of an Anemia Screening and Treatment Program.

BACKGROUND: Patients with anemia undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery are known to have significantly higher rates of postoperative complications and worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve rates of anemia screening and treatment in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections through a quality improvement initiative. DESIGN: We compared a historical cohort of patients before implementation of our anemia screening and treatment quality improvement program to a prospective cohort after implementation. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: This study included all adult patients with a new diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer without evidence of metastatic disease between 2017 and 2019. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions include the anemia screening and treatment quality improvement program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hospital cost per admission. RESULTS: This study includes a total of 84 patients who underwent elective colon or rectal resection before implementation of our anemia quality improvement project and 88 patients who underwent surgery after. In the preimplementation cohort 44 of 84 patients (55.9%) were anemic compared to 47 of 99 patients (54.7%) in the postimplementation cohort. Rates of screening (25%-86.4%) and treatment (27.8%- 63.8%) were significantly increased in the postimplementation cohort. Mean total cost per admission was significantly decreased in the postimplementation cohort (mean cost $16,827 vs $25,796; p = 0.004); this significant reduction was observed even after adjusting for relevant confounding factors (ratio of means: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85). The mechanistic link between treatment of anemia and reductions in cost remains unknown. No significant difference was found in rates of blood transfusion, complications, or mortality between the groups. LIMITATIONS: The study limitation includes before-after design subjected to selection and temporal biases. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the successful implementation of an anemia screening and treatment program. This program was associated with significantly reduced cost per admission. This work demonstrates possible value and benefits of implementation of an anemia screening and treatment program. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C15 .RESULTADOS DE LOS PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A RESECCIÓN INTESTINAL ELECTIVA ANTES Y DESPUÉS DE LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN PROGRAMA DE DETECCIÓN Y TRATAMIENTO DE ANEMIA. ANTECEDENTES: Se sabe que los pacientes anémicos que se someten a una cirugía electiva de cáncer colorrectal tienen tasas significativamente más altas de complicaciones posoperatorias y peores resultados. OBJETIVO: Mejorar las tasas de detección y tratamiento de la anemia en pacientes sometidos a resecciones electivas de colon y recto a través de una iniciativa de mejora de calidad. DISEO: Comparamos una cohorte histórica de pacientes antes de la implementación de nuestro programa de detección de anemia y mejora de la calidad del tratamiento con una cohorte prospectiva después de la implementación. ENTORNO CLINICO: Hospital de atención terciaria. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes adultos con un nuevo diagnóstico de cáncer de colon o recto sin evidencia de enfermedad metastásica entre 2017 y 2019. INTERVENCIONES: Detección de anemia y programa de mejora de la calidad del tratamiento. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El resultado primario fue el costo hospitalario por ingreso. RESULTADOS: Un total de 84 pacientes se sometieron a resección electiva de colon o recto antes de la implementación de nuestro proyecto de mejora de calidad de la anemia y 88 pacientes se sometieron a cirugía después. En la cohorte previa a la implementación, 44/84 (55,9 %) presentaban anemia en comparación con 47/99 (54,7 %) en la cohorte posterior a la implementación. Las tasas de detección (25 % a 86,4 %) y tratamiento (27,8 % a 63,8 %) aumentaron significativamente en la cohorte posterior a la implementación. El costo total medio por admisión se redujo significativamente en la cohorte posterior a la implementación (costo medio $16 827 vs. $25 796, p = 0,004); esta reducción significativa se observó incluso después de ajustar los factores de confusión relevantes (proporción de medias: 0,74, IC del 95 %: 0,65 a 0,85). El vínculo mecánico entre el tratamiento de la anemia y la reducción de costos sigue siendo desconocido. No hubo diferencias significativas en las tasas de transfusión de sangre, complicaciones o mortalidad entre los grupos. LIMITACIONES: El diseño de antes y después está sujeto a sesgos temporales y de selección. CONCLUSIONES: Demostramos la implementación exitosa de un programa de detección y tratamiento de anemia. Este programa se asoció con un costo por admisión significativamente reducido. Este trabajo demuestra el valor y los beneficios posibles de la implementación de un programa de detección y tratamiento de la anemia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C15 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Does Caudate Resection Improve Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Curative Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Margin-negative (R0) resection is the strongest positive prognostic factor in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). Due to its anatomic location, the caudate lobe is frequently involved in PHC. This review aimed to examine the impact of caudate lobe resection (CLR) in addition to hepatectomy and bile duct resection for patients with PHC. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception to October 2021 to identify studies comparing patients undergoing surgical resection with hepatectomy and bile duct resection with or without CLR for treatment of PHC. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving R0 resection, overall survival (OS), and perioperative morbidity. RESULTS: Altogether, 949 studies were screened. The review included eight observational studies reporting on 1137 patients. The patients who underwent CLR had a higher likelihood of R0 resection (odds ratio [OR], 5.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.64-12.95) and a better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79) than those who did not. The use of CLR did not increase the risk of perioperative morbidity (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.65-1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Given the higher likelihood of R0 resection, improved OS, and no apparent increase in perioperative morbidity, this review supports routine caudate lobectomy in the surgical management of PHC. These results should be interpreted with caution given the lack of high-quality prospective data and the high probability of selection bias.

Does Intraoperative Frozen Section and Revision of Margins Lead to Improved Survival in Patients Undergoing Resection of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is a rare malignancy that arises at the biliary confluence. Achieving a margin-negative resection (R0) is challenging given the anatomic location of tumors and remains the most important prognostic indicator of long-term survival. The objective of this study is to review the impact of intraoperative revision of positive biliary margins in PHC on oncologic outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to October 2021. Studies comparing three types of patients undergoing resection of PHC with intraoperative frozen section of the proximal and/or distal bile ducts were identified: those who were margin-negative (R0), those with an initially positive margin who had revised negative margins (R1R0), and those with a persistently positive margin with or without revision of a positive margin (R1). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included risk of postoperative complication. RESULTS: A total of 449 studies were screened. Ten retrospective observational studies reporting on 1955 patients were included. Patients undergoing successful revision of a positive proximal and/or distal bile duct margin (R1R0) had similar OS to those with a primary margin-negative resection (R0) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.19, p = 0.56, I2 = 84%], and significantly better OS than patients with a positive final bile duct margin (R1) (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.79, p = 0.002, I2 = 0%). There was no increase in the risk of postoperative complications associated with additional resection, although postoperative morbidity was inconsistently reported. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports routine intraoperative biliary margin evaluation during resection of PHC with revision if technically feasible.

Timing of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis initiation for trauma patients with nonoperatively managed blunt abdominal solid organ injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Blunt abdominal solid organ injury is common and is often managed nonoperatively. Clinicians must balance risk of both hemorrhage and thrombosis. The optimal timing of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) initiation in this population is unclear. The objective was to evaluate early (< 48 h) compared to late initiation of VTEp in adult trauma patients with blunt abdominal solid organ injury managed nonoperatively. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 2021. Studies comparing timeframes of VTEp initiation were considered. The primary outcome was failure of nonoperative management (NOM) after VTEp initiation. Secondary outcomes included risk of transfusion, other bleeding complications, risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and mortality. RESULTS: Ten cohort studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 4642 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of failure of NOM among patients receiving early VTEp (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01-3.05, p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in risk of transfusion. Odds of DVT were significantly lower in the early group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.59, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.82-2.75, p = 0.19). All studies were at serious risk of bias due to confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of VTEp earlier than 48 h following hospitalization is associated with an increased risk of failure of NOM but a decreased risk of DVT. Absolute failure rates of NOM are low. Initiation of VTEp at 48 h may balance the risks of bleeding and VTE.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Intraoperative Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to carry out a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing intraoperative RBC transfusion strategies to determine their impact on postoperative morbidity, mortality, and blood product use. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RBC transfusions are common in surgery and associated with widespread variability despite adjustment for casemix. Evidence-based recommendations guiding RBC transfusion in the operative setting are limited. METHODS: The search strategy was adapted from a previous Cochrane Review. Electronic databases were searched from January 2016 to February 2021. Included studies from the previous Cochrane Review were considered for eligibility from before 2016. RCTs comparing intraoperative transfusion strategies were considered for inclusion. Co-primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and perioperative RBC transfusion. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models. RESULTS: Fourteen trials (8641 patients) were included. One cardiac surgery trial accounted for 56% of patients. There was no difference in 30-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.29] and pooled postoperative morbidity among the studied outcomes when comparing restrictive and liberal protocols. Two trials reported worse composite outcomes with restrictive triggers. Intraoperative (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.64) and perioperative (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79) blood transfusions were significantly lower in the restrictive group compared to the liberal group. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative restrictive transfusion strategies decreased perioperative transfusions without added postoperative morbidity and mortality in 12/14 trials. Two trials reported worse outcomes. Given trial design and generalizability limitations, uncertainty remains regarding the safety of broad application of restrictive transfusion triggers in the operating room. Trials specifically designed to address intraoperative transfusions are urgently needed.

Prognostic factors associated with development of infected necrosis in patients with acute necrotizing or severe pancreatitis-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Acute pancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentation and illness severity. An infection of pancreatic necrosis (IPN) results in a more than twofold increase in mortality risk as compared with patients with sterile necrosis. We sought to identify prognostic factors for the development of IPN among adult patients with severe or necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: We conducted this prognostic review in accordance with systematic review methodology guidelines. We searched six databases from inception through March 21, 2021. We included English language studies describing prognostic factors associated with the development of IPN. We pooled unadjusted odds ratio (uOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for prognostic factors using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 31 observational studies involving 5,210 patients. Factors with moderate or higher certainty of association with increased IPN risk include older age (uOR, 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-3.45, moderate certainty), gallstone etiology (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.36-4.04, high certainty), greater than 50% necrosis of the pancreas (aOR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.15-6.04, high certainty), delayed enteral nutrition (aOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.26-3.47, moderate certainty), multiple or persistent organ failure (aOR, 11.71; 95% CI, 4.97-27.56, high certainty), and invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR, 12.24; 95% CI, 2.28-65.67, high certainty). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms the association between several clinical early prognostic factors and the risk of IPN development among patients with severe or necrotizing pancreatitis. These findings provide the foundation for the development of an IPN risk stratification tool to guide more targeted clinical trials for prevention or early intervention strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, Level IV.

Prophylaxis for patients at Risk to Eliminate Post-operative Atrial Fibrillation (PREP-AF trial): a protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequent adverse event after thoracic surgery with associated morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. It has been shown to be preventable with prophylactic amiodarone, which is only recommended in high-risk individuals due to the potential associated side effects. Risk factors for POAF have been identified and incorporated into a prediction model to identify high-risk patients. Further evaluation in the form of a multicenter clinical trial is required to assess the effectiveness of prophylaxis specifically in this high-risk population. The feasibility of such a trial first needs to be assessed. METHODS: The PREP-AF trial is a double-blind randomized controlled feasibility trial. Individuals undergoing major thoracic surgery who are identified to be high-risk by the POAF prediction model will be randomized 1:1 to receive a short course of amiodarone vs. placebo in the immediate postoperative period. The primary outcome is feasibility, which will be measured by the number of eligible patients identified, consented, and randomized; intervention adherence; and measurement of future outcomes of a full trial. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of prophylactic amiodarone, in high-risk patients undergoing major thoracic surgery. This will inform the development of a multi-center trial to establish if prophylactic amiodarone is safe and effective at reducing the incidence of POAF. Preventing this adverse event will not only improve outcomes for patients but also reduce the associated health resource utilization and costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04392921 . Registered on 19 May 2020.

Intraoperative Red Blood Cell Transfusion Decision-making: A Systematic Review of Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this work was to carry out a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) pertaining to intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, in terms of indications, decision-making, and supporting evidence base. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RBC transfusions are common during surgery and there is evidence of wide variability in practice. METHODS: Major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL), guideline clearinghouses and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception to January 2019 for CPGs pertaining to indications for intraoperative RBC transfusion. Eligible guidelines were retrieved and their quality assessed using AGREE II. Relevant recommendations were abstracted and synthesized to allow for a comparison between guidelines. RESULTS: Ten guidelines published between 1992 and 2018 provided indications for intraoperative transfusions. No guideline addressed intraoperative transfusion decision-making as its primary focus. Six guidelines provided criteria for transfusion based on hemoglobin (range 6.0-10.0 g/dL) or hematocrit (<30%) triggers. In the absence of objective transfusion rules, CPGs recommended considering other parameters such as blood loss (n = 7), signs of end organ ischemia (n = 5), and hemodynamics (n = 4). Evidence supporting intraoperative recommendations was extrapolated primarily from the nonoperative setting. There was wide variability in the quality of included guidelines based on AGREE II scores. CONCLUSION: This review has identified several clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations for intraoperative transfusion. The existing guidelines were noted to be highly variable in their recommendations and to lack a sufficient evidence base from the intraoperative setting. This represents a major knowledge gap in the literature.