Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 19831

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : November | Volume : 16 | Issue : 11 | Page : UC06 - UC10 Full Version

Assessment of Intraoperative Blood Transfusion Practices during Elective Surgeries in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Prospective Cross-sectional Study


Published: November 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/57436.16991
Mansi Uday Vaidya, Prerana Nirav Shah

1. Anaesthesiologist, Department of Anaesthesia, Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. 2. Professor (Additional), Department of Anaesthesia, Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Mansi Uday Vaidya,
O Bldg, Flat No.-5, Ramyanagari, Bibvewadi, Pune-411 037, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: vmansi25@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Blood transfusion remains the cornerstone of managing volume depletion and blood loss during surgeries. There are always patients and situations which clearly benefit from blood transfusion intraoperatively. Crystalloids and colloids cannot replace blood, as a substitute when the patient’s oxygen carrying capacity has been compromised. Anaemia in acute and chronic conditions is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Thus, blood transfusion has a very important role in the perioperative management of the patient.

Aim: To ascertain the common indications for which anaesthesiologists start perioperative blood transfusion, the rates of intraoperative overtransfusion, and to assess the variation in the blood transfusion practices at the study Institution from standard guidelines.

Materials and Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 168 patients patients operated at Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, from February 2017 to July 2017. The patients were adult American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) I and II, undergoing elective surgeries and required transfused blood intraoperatively. Operating room anaesthesiologists completed a record form for each of the patient. The form included details of the patient like age, gender, weight, type and duration of surgery, preoperative haemoglobin (done within 48 hours preoperatively), intraoperative blood loss, fluids and blood, and blood products transfused intraoperatively. The postoperative Haemoglobin (Hb) levels (done between 6 hours-24 hours postoperatively) were also recorded.

Results: The study showed that, 76 out of the 168 (45.2%) patients, who were transfused blood intraoperatively had been overtransfused, i.e., their postoperative Hb values were more than 10 g/dL. Blood loss was the sole indication for transfusion in 41 out of 168 (24.4%) patients. Blood was transfused in patients with low preoperative Hb in 21/168 (12.5%) patients, while it was done on surgeon’s request in 13/168 (7.7%) cases. Pallor, hypovolaemia and haemodynamic instability as sole indications included only 4.8%, 2.4% and 1.2% cases, respectively.

Conclusion: The present study revealed that a significant number (45.2%) of patients were overtransfused. A wide variation exists from the standard guidelines among anaesthesiologists. Implementation of restrictive transfusion strategies and a protocol-based intraoperative transfusion is required to optimise patient outcome.

Keywords

Anaemia, Blood loss, Crystalloids, Haemodynamic instability

Transfusion of blood and/or blood products become essential and is life saving during major surgical procedures for various indications. However, blood is precious and scarce resource and allogeneic blood transfusion has its share of associated risks to the patient. Transfusion-associated morbidity includes haemolysis, post-transfusion hepatitis, transfusion-related acute lung injury, anaphylaxis, graft-versus-host disease, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (1). Hence, optimisation of the risk-benefit ratio is necessary to reduce the incidence of critical events and adverse effects.

The variation in perioperative transfusion practices exists among the Anaesthesiologists or surgeons or the Institutions. This depends on many factors like patient’s physical status, co-existing diseases, preoperative Haemoglobin (Hb) level, surgical and anaesthetic techniques, intraoperative blood loss, haemodynamic status, etc. The decision regarding perioperative transfusion is often difficult to make and involve clinical judgement. Previously published retrospective or prospective studies have shown that blood is frequently overtransfused (2),(3). The preoperative cross-matching and blood requisition are often based on worst-case assumptions by anaesthesiologists or surgeon as there is no procedure-specific evidence-based guidelines to order for the appropriate amount of blood products. This kind of practice increases the healthcare cost for the patient, depletion of blood bank resources, overburdening of blood bank personnel, and wastage of time (4). To tackle this situation and facilitate the rational use of blood bank resources, and institution-specific Maximum Surgical Blood Ordering Schedule (MSBOS) was proposed. But there are certain drawbacks like individual differences in transfusion requirements, the requirement of electronic databases etc. (2).

The ASA and Italian Society of Transfusion Medicine and Immunohaematology (SIMTI) guidelines have recommended maintaining perioperative Hb levels higher than 6-8 g/dL in presence of risk factors or co-existing diseases (5),(6). However, these guidelines cannot be directly applied to all clinical situations and the recommendations should be considered carefully. Hence, despite these guidelines and the several risks of blood transfusion, surgeons and Anaesthesiologists are often liberal and frequently inconsistent in transfusion practice during the perioperative period. Allogenic blood misuse has been widely reported and despite recommendations and other educational efforts, it is still a problem (7). Studies may help to identify the Institute-specific problems in transfusion practice and regulate the rate of inappropriate transfusion (8).

The present study aimed to evaluate the variation in perioperative transfusion practices in the tertiary care Institute. The objectives were to ascertain the common indications for which the Anaesthesiologists started perioperative blood transfusion and to ascertain the rates of intraoperative overtransfusion in patients undergoing elective surgeries.

Material and Methods

This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India from February 2017 to July 2017. Prior ethical permission was taken from the Institutional Ethical Committee (No. EC/136/2016, dated 13.01.2017). This study was conducted at the General Surgery, Neurosurgery, Genitourinary, Gastroenterological, Orthopaedic and Plastic surgery operation theatres.

Inclusion criteria: A total of 168 ASA PS I and II patients, (ASA 1- Healthy patients, ASA 2- Mild to moderate systemic disease which is well controlled) aged 18-90 years of either sex, who had undergone various elective surgeries and were transfused blood or blood products, intraoperatively.

Exclusion criteria: Patients undergoing cardiac, transplant and paediatric surgeries. Patients or consultant Anaesthesiologists, who did not give consent or refused to participate in the study were also excluded.

Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated by using the formula for the cross-sectional study based on the observations of a previous study (9). A sample size of 168 cases was achieved according to the formula: n=Z2pqN*e2 (N-1)/Z2pq, where p=proportion percentage of the most common variable in the population studies, q=100-proportion, e=5%, N=Total cases, Z=1.96.

Study Procedure

A consultant anaesthesiologist was designated as the study coordinator and a trainee anaesthesiologist was assigned to visit the operation theatres daily. Each transfusion decision was decided independently by the anaesthesiologist, who was involved in intraoperative patient management. A record form was provided to the anaesthesiologists for each patient who required blood transfusion intraoperatively. The form included details of the patient like age, gender, weight, type and duration of surgery, preoperative Hb, intraoperative blood loss, fluids, blood and blood products transfusion intraoperatively and postoperative Hb levels. The incidence of intraoperative haemodynamic instability and requirement of ionotropic support were also recorded. The anaesthesiologists marked the indication (s) of intraoperative blood transfusion from the options given in the record form which included clinical pallor, blood loss, low preoperative Hb, hypovolaemia, haemodynamic instability, surgeon’s request or any other specific cause, for which they were transfused blood. The identity and information of the patient and Anaesthesiologist were kept confidential.

Intraoperative blood loss was calculated from the gauze pieces used during surgery, by measuring the volume of blood in the suction bottle after deduction of any washing fluid given during the surgery and visual estimation of loss in the operative field. Two standard size gauze pieces were used during all the surgeries. The blood volume of fully-soaked small and large gauze pieces were 20 mL and 100 mL, respectively.

All the patients were followed-up for 24 hours, postoperatively. Their postoperative Hb levels- measured between 6 hours to 24 hours postoperatively- were documented in the case record form. Perioperative blood transfusion was defined as transfusion of Red Blood Cells (RBCs) (packed cells or whole blood) during or within 24 hours, after surgery. From the information obtained, the common indications for blood transfusion in our hospital were assessed. Based on the level of postoperative Hb, the study was conducted by evaluating the rate of appropriate blood transfusions and overtransfusions. The appropriateness of blood transfusion was associated with individual patient factors like age, sex, weight, type of surgery, type of anaesthesia given, and duration of surgery, blood loss during the surgery and also with the experience of the anaesthesiologist responsible for the transfusion.

The variation in blood transfusion practices was assessed. This cut-off was based on ASA Task Force Practice guidelines for perioperative blood transfusion and adjuvant therapies (5).

The standard indications for blood transfusion include:

1. Blood loss greater than 20% of blood volume, when more than 100 mL.
2. Hb level less than 8 g/dL.
3. Hb level less than 10 g/dL with major disease (e.g. emphysema, ischaemic heart disease).
4. Hb level less than 10 g/dL with autologous blood.
5. Hb level less than 12 g/dL and ventilator dependant.

A patient was considered overtransfused, if the post-transfusion Hb concentration was more than 10 g/dL. The ASA guidelines suggests that patients with Hb more than 10 g/dL rarely need transfusions (5).

Statistical Analysis

All statistical calculations were done using Microsoft Excel 2019 (Microsoft Corporation, NY, USA) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).Descriptive statistics such as mean and percentage were calculated to present univariate data such as age, sex, duration of surgery and indication of blood transfusion. To analyse factors associated with the appropriateness of blood transfusion; p-value<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Patients were classified as appropriate transfusion and overtransfusion. To study the factors of categorical variables associated with the appropriateness of blood transfusion; Chi-square test was applied. To study factors of continuous variables related to the appropriateness of blood transfusion; unpaired t-test was applied.

Results

The study recruited 168 patients who needed an intraoperative blood transfusion. A total of 12 Anaesthesiologists, who administered anaesthesia for these patients from various surgical sub-specialities filled the perioperative details in case record forms. In the study, 92 out of the 168 patients (54.8%) had been transfused blood appropriately, i.e. their postoperative post-transfusion Hb levels were less than 10 g/dL. Thus, almost half of the blood transfusions done intraoperatively were inappropriate as per the ASA guidelines. The demographic profile of 168 patients and 12 anaesthesiologists are shown in (Table/Fig 1), (Table/Fig 2) respectively. Majority of the patients (23.2%) were in 18-26 years age group. The age and sex of patients did not affect the appropriateness of blood transfusion significantly. A statistically significant overtransfusion was noted in patients with higher mean weight, as compared to appropriately transfused patients (p<0.05).

Indications for transfusion, surgery, and type of anaesthesia are enumerated in (Table/Fig 3), (Table/Fig 4), (Table/Fig 5). As shown in (Table/Fig 6) the mean duration of surgeries was 318.27 minutes. The duration of surgery did not affect the appropriateness of blood transfusion. The mean blood loss was 888.33 mL. The intraoperative blood transfusions were more appropriate when blood loss was more. (Table/Fig 3) shows various indications of blood transfusion in the study population. The rate of appropriate blood transfusion was significantly higher when it was done for more than one indication. In 7.7% of cases, blood was transfused despite the absence of any of these indications, on the request of the operating surgeon. Hypovolaemia and haemodynamic instability, were the less common indications for intraoperative blood transfusion.

The study included cases of blood transfusions done in different sub-specialities of surgery. The distribution of cases and appropriateness of blood transfusion in each type of surgery is shown in (Table/Fig 4).

As seen in (Table/Fig 7), the type of anaesthesia did not affect the appropriateness of transfusion. All the different types of anaesthesia administered had almost equal rates of appropriate transfusions and overtransfusions as can be seen. Of these, general plus epidural anaesthesia had the most favourable rate of appropriate transfusions amongst all the types of anaesthesia (61.54%) (Table/Fig 5).

(Table/Fig 8) shows years of experience of the Anaesthesiologists after completing their MD Anaesthesiology.

A majority (41.8%) of them had 6-9 years of experience.Anaesthesiologists with an experience of less than five years, overtransfused in 52.8% cases. Anaesthesiologists with 6-9 years of experience did the maximum number of appropriate blood transfusions. However, there was a slight decline in the percentage of appropriate transfusions by Anaesthesiologists, with more than 10 years of experience with 42.7% cases being overtransfused.

Discussion

The present prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the existing practice of blood transfusion during the perioperative period in a tertiary care hospital. This would help to study the appropriateness of the use of blood in various surgical sub-specialities, formulate blood ordering strategy, ensure rational use and avoid wastage of valuable resources like blood.

In the present study, it was found that 45.2% of patients who received intraoperative blood transfusion had been overtransfused as the postoperative Hb was more than 10 g/dL. According to ASA guidelines patients with Hb, more than 10 g/dL rarely need transfusions (5). This finding was similar to various studies published in the literature. The incidence of overtransfusion in these studies varied between 19 and 53%. Niraj G et al., noticed a low rate of appropriate blood use (40.7%) in their prospective study in non cardiac surgery (3) whereas Gomathi G and Varghese RG found a high proportion of appropriate use of packed red cell (8). But in contrast, Ranganathan P et al., observed comparable rates of overtransfusion of blood (51%) in cancer surgery (9). This variation in the literature could be because of the difference in protocols followed by different Institutions and the criteria used to define overtransfusion.

It was observed that age and sex ratio did not affect the rate of overtransfusion in present study patients. However, overtransfused patients had a higher bodyweight, as compared to those who were appropriately transfused. The reason for this statistically significant difference could be due to the consideration of total body weight, instead of ideal body weight (as is followed by Anaesthetists in the study Institute) which led to an overestimation of the maximum tolerable blood loss in these patients.

The most common indications for perioperative transfusion in the present study was due to multiple factors (47%), followed by acute blood loss (24.4%). Niraj G et al., observed low Hb as the primary trigger (72%) for transfusion in their study (3). The most common indications for perioperative transfusion were blood loss exceeding the maximum allowable loss and low intraoperative Hb in a study conducted by Ranganathan P et al., (9). Considering clinical anaemia by examination of a patient’s conjunctiva as the primary trigger resulted in 40.7% transfusion in a study by Choy YC et al., (7). Intraoperative pallor as the transfusion requirement criteria was probably a crude method -which was not ideal- so resulted in 62.5% overtransfusion in the study.

Ranganathan P et al.,observed the highest rate of overtransfusion (63%) in patients who had no documented indication for transfusion. The study shows that it must be insisted to properly document the transfusion trigger in intraoperative notes, as it was proven to decrease in the incidence of inappropriate transfusions significantly (9).

In the present study, although the duration of surgery did not significantly affect the rate of overtransfusion, the variation observed among various sub-specialities. It was observed there was overtransfusion in more than 50% of cases in spine and orthopaedic surgeries. However, general surgery showed favourable scenario in which 73.33% of cases were appropriately transfused. Kucchal A et al., also observed similar findings in their study (10).

In the present study, the anaesthesia technique did not seem to affect blood transfusion practice significantly. However, regional anaesthesia is proven to be associated with lower blood loss and transfusion requirements as compared to general anaesthesia (11). It was observed that a wide variation in the transfusion practices amongst the Anaesthesiologists in the same hospital. Anaesthesiologists with 5-10 years of experience, transfused the blood appropriately in the maximum number of cases. This showed clinical experience probably improved the clinical judgement of Anaesthesiologists regarding intraoperative transfusion. However, there was a slight increase in the overtransfusion rate (42.7%) by Anaesthesiologists with more than 10 years of experience. Probably a more liberal blood transfusion strategy was used by the older generation of Anaesthesiologists, according to their experience.

It was found there was a wide variation in the transfusion practices followed by different Anaesthesiologists in the same Institute. No single protocol or guideline was adhered to by the anaesthesiologists, which contributed to the high rates of overtransfusion. Each one had their own individualised management and decision making, when it came to transfusing blood to the patient. It could be speculated that, the reason for a high rate of overtransfusion could be due to:

1. Lack of implementation of a standardised protocol for blood transfusion.
2. Lack of adherence to uniform transfusion guidelines by the anaesthesiologists.
3. No documentation of the indication for transfusion.
4. A lack of supervision and audit of the existing transfusion practices by the Institute, regularly.

McEwen J and Huttunen KH in their study on transfusion practice in Neuroanaesthesia suggested that clinicians should consider blood conservation strategies and understand potential risks and benefits of blood transfusion (12).

It is the need of the hour to increase awareness regarding the risks and lack of benefit of overtransfusion. There is a need to have a uniform transfusion protocol, point-of-care intraoperative Hb testing, proper documentation of indication, perioperative blood conservation strategies and transfusion audits at regular intervals to ensure judicious blood transfusion in the perioperative setting. Appropriate measures of blood transfusion and implementing restrictive blood transfusion strategies in Institutions, their implementation and feedback, to bring down overuse and to improve the blood transfusion practices is needed.

Limitation(s)

The present prospective study involved only ASA I and II patients. The study included, only RBC transfusions (packed cells or whole blood) and transfusion of fresh frozen plasma and platelets were not considered for analysis. Plastic surgery and gastroenterological surgery had only four and seven cases, respectively which were not enough to reach any conclusive results. A future study with a larger population and multicentre studies are warranted.

Conclusion

The present study throws light on the blood transfusion practices followed in a tertiary care Institute. A wide variation exists among Anaesthesiologists and from the standard guidelines in the blood transfusion practices in the Institute where the present study was conducted. The most common indication for blood transfusion was found to be blood loss followed by low preoperative Hb. Implementation of restrictive transfusion strategies and a protocol-based management of blood transfusion intraoperatively, is the need of the hour, in order to optimise patient outcome and to conserve this dwindling reserve of blood.

References

1.
Suddock JT, Crookston KP. Transfusion Reactions. [Updated 2020 Jul 2]. In: Stat Pearls [Internet]. Treasure Island(FL): Stat Pearls Publishing; 2020 January. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482202/.
2.
Blank RM, Blank SP, Roberts HE. An audit of perioperative blood transfusions in a regional hospital to rationalise a maximum surgical blood ordering schedule. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018;46(5):498-03. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Niraj G, Puri GD, Arun D, Chakravarty V, Aveek J, Chari P, et al. Assessment of intraoperative blood transfusion practice during elective non cardiac surgery in an Indian tertiary care hospital. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91(4):586-89. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Subramanian A, Rangarajan K, Kumar S, Sharma V, Farooque K, Misra MC, et al. Reviewing the blood ordering schedule for elective orthopedic surgeries at a level one trauma care center. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2010;3:225-30. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
American Society of Anaesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Management. Practice guidelines for perioperative blood management: An updated report by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Management. Anaesthesiology. 2015;122(2):241-75. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Liumbruno GM, Bennardello F, Lattanzio A, Piccoli P, Rossetti G. Italian Society of Transfusion Medicine and Immunohaematology (SIMTI) Working Party. Recommendations for the transfusion management of patients in the perioperative period. II. The intraoperative period. Blood Transfus. 2011;9(2):189-17. doi:10.2450/2011.0075-10
7.
Choy YC, Lim WL, Ng SH. Audit of perioperative blood transfusion. Med J Malaysia. 2007;62:299-02.
8.
Gomathi G, Varghese RG. Audit of use of blood and its components in a tertiary care centre in South India. Asian J Transfus Sci. 2012;6189. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Ranganathan P, Ahmed S, Kulkarni AP, Divatia JV. Appropriateness of perioperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing cancer surgery: A prospective single-centre study. Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:234-37. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Kuchhal A, Negi G, Gaur DS, Harsh M. Blood utilization practices in elective surgical patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital of Uttarakhand. Glob J Transfus Med. 2016;1:51-56. [crossref]
11.
Mauermann WJ , Shilling AM, Zuo Z. A comparison of neuraxial block versus general anaesthesia for elective total hip replacement: A meta-analysis. Anaesthesia and Analgesia. 2006;103(4):1018-25. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Mc Ewen J, Huttunen KH. Transfusion practice in Neuroanaesthesia. Curr Opin Ananesthesiol. 2009;22(5):566-71. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/57436.16991

Date of Submission: Apr 29, 2022
Date of Peer Review: May 25, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jul 21, 2022
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 05, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jul 14, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jul 19, 2022 (14%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com