• ZapfMatthew A CMACDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: matthew.a.zapf@vumc.org., Daniel V Fabbri, Jennifer Andrews, Gen Li, Robert E Freundlich, Samer Al-Droubi, and Jonathan P Wanderer.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: matthew.a.zapf@vumc.org.
• J Clin Anesth. 2023 Dec 1; 91: 111272111272.

Study ObjectiveTo develop an algorithm to predict intraoperative Red Blood Cell (RBC) transfusion from preoperative variables contained in the electronic medical record of our institution, with the goal of guiding type and screen ordering.DesignMachine Learning model development on retrospective single-center hospital data.SettingPreoperative period and operating room.PatientsThe study included patients ≥18 years old who underwent surgery during 2019-2022 and excluded those who refused transfusion, underwent emergency surgery, or surgery for organ donation after cardiac or brain death.InterventionPrediction of intraoperative transfusion vs. no intraoperative transfusion.MeasurementsThe outcome variable was intraoperative transfusion of RBCs. Predictive variables were surgery, surgeon, anesthesiologist, age, sex, body mass index, race or ethnicity, preoperative hemoglobin (g/dL), partial thromboplastin time (s), platelet count x 109 per liter, and prothrombin time. We compared the performances of seven machine learning algorithms. After training and optimization on the 2019-2021 dataset, model thresholds were set to the current institutional performance level of sensitivity (93%). To qualify for comparison, models had to maintain clinically relevant sensitivity (>90%) when predicting on 2022 data; overall accuracy was the comparative metric.Main ResultsOut of 100,813 cases that met study criteria from 2019 to 2021, intraoperative transfusion occurred in 5488 (5.4%) of cases. The LightGBM model was the highest performing algorithm in external temporal validity experiments, with overall accuracy of (76.1%) [95% confidence interval (CI), 75.6-76.5], while maintaining clinically relevant sensitivity of (91.2%) [95% CI, 89.8-92.5]. If type and screens were ordered based upon the LightGBM model, the predicted type and screen to transfusion ratio would improve from 8.4 to 5.1.ConclusionsMachine learning approaches are feasible in predicting intraoperative transfusion from preoperative variables and may improve preoperative type and screen ordering practices when incorporated into the electronic health record.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…