Critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Forum
-
Trauma is the leading cause of death from age 1 to 34 years and is the fifth leading cause of death overall in the USA, with uncontrolled hemorrhage being the leading cause of potentially preventable death. Improving our ability to control hemorrhage may represent the next major hurdle in reducing trauma mortality. ⋯ The most important of these new drugs are injectable hemostatics, fibrin foams, and dressings. The available animal studies are encouraging and human studies are required.
-
Persons who suffer traumatic injury are likely to be transfused with considerable amounts of blood during initial resuscitation efforts. Oxygen-carrying solutions are currently in clinical testing as substitutes for red blood cells. Although these agents may eliminate many concerns associated with blood administration (short shelf life, infectious and immunologic risks, the need to type and cross-match), early cell-free hemoglobin solutions demonstrated nephrotoxicity and were associated with pulmonary and systemic hypertension, among other adverse events. Newer polymerized hemoglobin solutions show acceptable safety profiles in the surgical setting and studies are being designed, some with funding from the US Department of Defense, to evaluate their efficacy in hemorrhaging trauma victims.
-
Review Comparative Study
To filter blood or universal leukoreduction: what is the answer?
The safety of the blood supply has been a concern over the past 20-30 years because of the transmission of infectious diseases. Blood is still routinely tested for viruses, and leukoreduction is an effective strategy to reduce the transmission of cell-associated viruses. Clinically, the benefits of leukoreduction include decreases in transfusion reactions, HLA alloimmunization, infections, fever episodes, and antibiotic use. Although leukoreduction will add cost to a unit of blood, projections indicate that leukoreduced blood will become the standard of care.
-
Despite the increasing availability of data supporting more restrictive transfusion practices, the risks and benefits of transfusing critically ill patients continue to evoke controversy. Past retrospective and observational studies suggested that liberal transfusion strategies were more beneficial in patients whose hematocrit levels fell below 30%. An expanding body of literature suggests that an arbitrary trigger for transfusion (the '10/30 rule') is ill advised. ⋯ Based on the available evidence, transfusion in the critically ill patient without active ischemic heart disease should generally be withheld until the hemoglobin level falls to 7 g/dl. Transfusions should be administered as clinically indicated for patients with acute, ongoing blood loss and those who have objective signs and symptoms of anemia despite maintenance of euvolemia. The hemoglobin level at which serious morbidity or mortality occurs in critically ill patients with active ischemic heart disease is a subject of continued debate but it is likely that a set transfusion trigger will not provide an optimal risk-benefit profile in this population.
-
Blood transfusions remain common practice in the critical care and surgical settings. Transfusions carry significant risks, including risks for transmission of infectious agents and immune suppression. Transmission of bacterial infections, although rare, is the most common adverse event with transfusion. ⋯ Numerous studies have been performed to examine the role of leukoreduction in decreasing these transfusion-related complications but results remain contradictory. We review the infectious risks associated with blood transfusion and the most recent data on its immunologic effects, specifically on cancer recurrence, mortality, and postoperative infections in surgical patients. We also review the use of leukoreduction in blood transfusion and its role in preventing transfusion-transmitted infections and immunomodulatory complications.