[Safety of cell salvage in tumor surgery : Systematic review with meta-analysis]. / Sicherheit der maschinellen Autotransfusion in der Tumorchirurgie : Systematisches Review mit Metaanalyse.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic blood transfusion is avoidable in many oncological interventions by the use of cell salvage or mechanical autotransfusion (MAT). As irradiation is elaborate and expensive, the safety of leucocyte depletion filters (LDF) for autologous blood from the surgical field might be a more acceptable alternative for the prevention of cancer recurrences. A previous meta-analysis could not identify an increased risk of cancer recurrence. The aim of this review article is to provide an update of a previous meta-analysis from 2012 as well as a safety analysis of cell salvage with LDF due to the improved data situation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review included all studies in PubMed, Cochrane, Cochrane Reviews and Web of Science on cell salvage or autotransfusion combined with outcomes, e.g. cancer recurrence, mortality, survival, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS) after the use of MAT without irradiation and with or without LDF. The grades of recommendations (GRADE) assessment of underlying evidence was applied. RESULTS: A total of seven new observational studies and seven meta-analyses were found that compared unfiltered or filtered cell salvage with autologous predeposition, allogeneic transfusion or without any transfusion. No randomized controlled trials have been completed. A total of 27 observational and cohort studies were included in a meta-analysis. The evidence level was low. The risk of cancer recurrence in recipients of autologous salvaged blood with or without LDF was reduced (odds ratio, OR 0.71, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.58-0.86) as compared to non-transfused subjects, allogeneic or predeposited autologous transfusion. The transfusion rate could not be assessed due to the substantial selection bias and large heterogeneity. Cell salvage does not change mortality and LOS. Leucocyte depletion studies reported a removal rate of cancer cells in the range of 99.6-99.9%. CONCLUSION: Randomized controlled trials on a comparison of MAT and allogeneic blood transfusion as well as LDF and irradiation would be desirable but are not available. From observational trials and more than 6300 subjects and various tumors, cell salvage in cancer surgery with or without LDF appears to be sufficiently safe. The efficacy of leucocyte depletion of autologous salvaged blood is equivalent to irradiation. Unavailability of radiation is not a contraindication for cell salvage use in cancer surgery. By usage of leucocyte depleted salvaged autologous blood, the risks of allogeneic transfusion can be avoided.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: The Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study in Heart Failure (CROS-HF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on top of state-of-the-art pharmacological and device therapy on mortality, hospitalization, exercise capacity and quality-of-life are not well established. DESIGN: The design of this study involved a structured review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Evaluation of randomised controlled trials of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in HFrEF-patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% of any aetiology with a follow-up of ≥6 months published in 1999 or later. RESULTS: Out of 12,229 abstracts, 25 randomised controlled trials including 4481 HFrEF-patients were included in the final evaluation. Heterogeneity in study population, study design and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation-intervention was evident. No significant difference in the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality compared to control-group was found (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.39-1.41, four studies; 12-months follow-up: relative risk 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.66-2.49, eight studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.26-3.16, seven studies). In addition there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to 'hospitalization-for-any-reason' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.53, four studies), or 'hospitalization-due-to-heart-failure' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.12-2.91, four studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.07-9.71, three studies). All studies show improvement of exercise capacity. Participation in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved quality-of-life as evaluated with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: (six-months follow-up: mean difference 1.94, 95% confidence interval 0.35-3.56, two studies), but no significant results emerged for quality-of-life measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (nine-months or more follow-up: mean difference -4.19, 95% confidence interval -10.51-2.12, seven studies; six-months follow-up: mean difference -5.97, 95% confidence interval -16.17-4.23, four studies). CONCLUSION: No association between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and mortality or hospitalisation could be observed in HFrEF patients but exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is likely to improve exercise capacity and quality of life.