Estimating intraoperative blood loss is one of the daily challenges for clinicians. Despite the knowledge of the inaccuracy of visual estimation by anaesthetists and surgeons, this is still the mainstay to estimate surgical blood loss. This review aims at highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of currently used measurement methods. A systematic review of studies on estimation of blood loss was carried out. Studies were included investigating the accuracy of techniques for quantifying blood loss in vivo and in vitro. We excluded nonhuman trials and studies using only monitoring parameters to estimate blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate systematic measurement errors of the different methods. Only studies that were compared with a validated reference e.g. Haemoglobin extraction assay were included. 90 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and were analyzed. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, as only these were conducted with a validated reference. The mixed effect meta-analysis showed the highest correlation to the reference for colorimetric methods (0.93 95% CI 0.91–0.96), followed by gravimetric (0.77 95% CI 0.61–0.93) and finally visual methods (0.61 95% CI 0.40–0.82). The bias for estimated blood loss (ml) was lowest for colorimetric methods (57.59 95% CI 23.88–91.3) compared to the reference, followed by gravimetric (326.36 95% CI 201.65–450.86) and visual methods (456.51 95% CI 395.19–517.83). Of the many studies included, only a few were compared with a validated reference. The majority of the studies chose known imprecise procedures as the method of comparison. Colorimetric methods offer the highest degree of accuracy in blood loss estimation. Systems that use colorimetric techniques have a significant advantage in the real-time assessment of blood loss.
Background Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has become an integral part of modern intensive therapy. The choice of support mode depends largely on the indication. Patients with respiratory failure are predominantly treated with a venovenous (VV) approach. We hypothesized that mortality in Germany in ECLS therapy did not differ from previously reported literature Methods Inpatient data from Germany from 2007 to 2018 provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany were analysed. The international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems codes (ICD) and process keys (OPS) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) types, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and hospital mortality were used. Results In total, 45,647 hospitalized patients treated with ECLS were analysed. In Germany, 231 hospitals provided ECLS therapy, with a median of 4 VV-ECMO and 9 VA-ECMO in 2018. Overall hospital mortality remained higher than predicted in comparison to the values reported in the literature. The number of VV-ECMO cases increased by 236% from 825 in 2007 to 2768 in 2018. ARDS was the main indication for VV-ECMO in only 33% of the patients in the past, but that proportion increased to 60% in 2018. VA-ECMO support is of minor importance in the treatment of ARDS in Germany. The age distribution of patients undergoing ECLS has shifted towards an older population. In 2018, the hospital mortality decreased in VV-ECMO patients and VV-ECMO patients with ARDS to 53.9% (n = 1493) and 54.4% (n = 926), respectively. Conclusions ARDS is a severe disease with a high mortality rate despite ECLS therapy. Although endpoints and timing of the evaluations differed from those of the CESAR and EOLIA studies and the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry, the reported mortality in these studies was lower than in the present analysis. Further prospective analyses are necessary to evaluate outcomes in ECMO therapy at the centre volume level.
BACKGROUND In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many retrospective singlecentre or specialised centre reports have shown promising mortality rates with the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy. However, the mortality rate of an entire country throughout the COVID-19 pandemic remains unknown.OBJECTIVES The primary objective is to determine the hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients receiving venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) and veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) therapy. Secondary objectives are the chronological development of mortality during the pandemic, the analysis of comorbidities, age and complications. DESIGN Cohort study.SETTING Inpatient data from January 2020 to September 2021 of all hospitals in Germany were analysed.PARTICIPANTS All COVID-19-positive patients who received ECMO therapy were analysed according to the appropriate international statistical classification of diseases and related health problem codes (ICDs) and process key codes (OPSs).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the hospital mortality. RESULTSIn total, 4279 COVID-19-positive patients who received ECMO therapy were analysed. Among 404 patients treated with VA-ECMO and 3875 treated with VV-ECMO, the hospital mortality was high: 72% (n ¼ 291) for VA-ECMO and 65.9% (n ¼ 2552) for VV-ECMO. A total of 43.2% (n ¼ 1848) of all patients were older than 60 years with a hospital mortality rate of 72.7% (n ¼ 172) for VA-ECMO and 77.6% (n ¼ 1301) for VV-ECMO. CPR was performed in 44.1% (n ¼ 178) of patients with VA-ECMO and 16.4% (n ¼ 637) of patients with VV-ECMO. The mortality rates widely varied from 48.1 to 84.4% in individual months and worsened from March 2020 (59.2%) to September 2021 (78.4%).CONCLUSION In Germany, a large proportion of elderly patients with COVID-19 were treated with ECMO, with an unacceptably high hospital mortality. Considering these data, the unconditional use of ECMO therapy in COVID-19 must be carefully considered and advanced age should be considered as a relative contraindication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.