Background and Objectives: The aim of this survey was to evaluate the knowledge about Patient Blood Management (PBM) principles and practices amongst clinicians working in seven European hospitals participating in a European Blood Alliance (EBA) project.Materials and Methods: A web‐based questionnaire was sent to 4952 clinicians working in medical, surgery and anaesthesiology disciplines. The responses were analysed, and the overall results as well as a comparison between hospitals are presented.Results: A total of 788 responses (16%) were obtained. About 24% of respondents were not aware of a correlation between preoperative anaemia (POA) and perioperative morbidity and mortality. For 22%, treatment of POA was unlikely to favourably influence morbidity and mortality even before surgery with expected blood loss. More than half of clinicians did not routinely treat POA. 29%, when asked which is the best way to treat deficiency anaemia preoperatively, answered that they did not have sufficient knowledge and 5% chose to ‘do nothing’. Amongst those who treated POA, 38% proposed red cell transfusion prior to surgery as treatment. Restrictive haemoglobin triggers for red blood cell transfusion, single unit policy and reduction of number and volumes of blood samples for diagnostic purposes were only marginally implemented.Conclusion: Overall, the responses indicated poor knowledge about PBM. Processes to diagnose and treat POA were not generally and homogeneously implemented. This survey should provide further impetus to implement programmes to improve knowledge and practice of PBM.

Porphyrias are a group of rare disorders originating from an enzyme dysfunction in the pathway of heme biosynthesis. Depending on the specific enzyme involved, porphyrias manifest under drastically different clinical pictures. The most dramatic presentation of the four congenital acute hepatic porphyrias (AHPs: acute intermittent porphyria—AIP, ALAD deficiency, hereditary coproporphyria—HCP, and porphyria variegata—VP) consists of potentially life-threatening neurovisceral attacks, for which givosiran, a novel and effective siRNA-based therapeutic, has recently been licensed. Nonetheless, the clinical manifestations of acute porphyrias are multifaceted and do not limit themselves to acute attacks. In particular, porphyria-associated kidney disease (PAKD) is a distinct, long-term degenerating condition with specific pathological and clinical features, for which a satisfactory treatment is not available yet. In PAKD, chronic tubule-interstitial damage has been most commonly reported, though other pathologic features (e.g., chronic fibrous intimal hyperplasia) are consistent findings. Given the relevant role of the kidney in porphyrin metabolism, the mechanisms possibly intervening in causing renal damage in AHPs are different: among others, δ-aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-induced oxidative damage on mitochondria, intracellular toxic aggregation of porphyrins in proximal tubular cells, and derangements in the delicate microcirculatory balances of the kidney might be implicated. The presence of a variant of the human peptide transporter 2 (PEPT2), with a greater affinity to its substrates (including ALA), might confer a greater susceptibility to kidney damage in patients with AHPs. Furthermore, a possible effect of givosiran in worsening kidney function has been observed. In sum, the diagnostic workup of AHPs should always include a baseline evaluation of renal function, and periodic monitoring of the progression of kidney disease in patients with AHPs is strongly recommended. This review outlines the role of the kidney in porphyrin metabolism, the available evidence in support of the current etiologic and pathogenetic hypotheses, and the known clinical features of renal involvement in acute hepatic porphyrias.

Patient Blood Management (PBM) is an evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centred approach to optimizing the care of patients who might need a blood transfusion. This systematic review aimed to collect the best available evidence on the effectiveness of preoperative iron supplementation with or without erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on red blood cell (RBC) utilization in all-cause anaemic patients scheduled for elective surgery. Five databases and two trial registries were screened. Primary outcomes were the number of patients and the number of RBC units transfused. Effect estimates were synthesized by conducting meta-analyses. GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. We identified 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-RCTs comparing the effectiveness of preoperative iron monotherapy, or iron + ESAs, to control (no treatment, usual care, placebo). We found that: (1) IV and/or oral iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of units transfused and IV iron may not reduce the number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (2) uncertainty exists whether the administration route of iron therapy (IV vs oral) differentially affects RBC utilization (very low-certainty evidence); (3) IV ferric carboxymaltose monotherapy may not result in a different number of patients transfused compared to IV iron sucrose monotherapy (low-certainty evidence); (4) oral iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of patients transfused and number of units transfused (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) IV iron + ESAs may result in a reduced number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (6) oral and/or IV iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of RBC units transfused in transfused patients (moderate-certainty evidence); (7) uncertainty exists about the effect of oral and/or IV iron + ESAs on the number of patients requiring transfusion of multiple units (very low-certainty evidence). Effect estimates of different haematological parameters and length of stay were synthesized as secondary outcomes. In conclusion, in patients with anaemia of any cause scheduled for elective surgery, the preoperative administration of iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of patients or units transfused (low-certainty evidence). Iron supplementation in addition to ESAs probably results in a reduced RBC utilization (moderate-certainty evidence).

Background and objectives: Preoperative anaemia is an independent risk factor for a higher morbidity and mortality, a longer hospitalization and increased perioperative transfusion rates. Managing preoperative anaemia is the first of three pillars of Patient Blood Management (PBM), a multidisciplinary concept to improve patient safety. While various studies provide medical information on (successful) anaemia treatment pathways, knowledge of organizational details of diagnosis and management of preoperative anaemia across Europe is scarce.Materials and methods: To gain information on various aspects of preoperative anaemia management including organization, financing, diagnostics and treatment, we conducted a survey (74 questions) in ten hospitals from seven European nations within the PaBloE (Patient Blood Management in Europe) working group covering the year 2016.Results: Organization and activity in the field of preoperative anaemia management were heterogeneous in the participating hospitals. Almost all hospitals had pathways for managing preoperative anaemia in place, however, only two nations had national guidelines. In six of the ten participating hospitals, preoperative anaemia management was organized by anaesthetists. Diagnostics and treatment focused on iron deficiency anaemia which, in most hospitals, was corrected with intravenous iron.Conclusion: Implementation and approaches of preoperative anaemia management vary across Europe with a primary focus on treating iron deficiency anaemia. Findings of this survey motivated the hospitals involved to critically evaluate their practice and may also help other hospitals interested in PBM to develop action plans for diagnosis and management of preoperative anaemia.

Background: The efficacy of early treatment with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 is debated. Nothing is known about the potential effect of other plasma components other than anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Methods: To determine whether convalescent or standard plasma would improve outcomes for adults in early phase of Covid19 respiratory impairment we designed this randomized, three-arms, clinical trial (PLACO COVID) blinded on interventional arms that was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. It was a multicentric trial at 19 Italian hospitals. We enrolled 180 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia within 5 days from the onset of respiratory distress. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard of care (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of standard plasma (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of high-titre convalescent plasma (n = 60) administered on days 1, 3, 5 after randomization. Primary outcome was 30-days mortality. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of mechanical ventilation or death at day 30, 6-month mortality, proportion of days with mechanical ventilation on total length of hospital stay, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, viral clearance from plasma and respiratory tract samples, and variations in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. The trial was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: 180 patients (133/180 [73.9%] males, mean age 66.6 years [IQR 57–73]) were enrolled a median of 8 days from onset of symptoms. At enrollment, 88.9% of patients showed moderate/severe respiratory failure. 30-days mortality was 20% in Control arm, 23% in Convalescent (risk ratio [RR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–2.13, P = 0.694) and 25% in Standard plasma (RR 1.23; 95%CI, 0.63–2.37, P = 0.544). Time to viral clearance from respiratory tract was 21 days for Convalescent, 28 for Standard plasma and 23 in Control arm but differences were not statistically significant. No differences for other secondary endpoints were seen in the three arms. Serious adverse events were reported in 1.7%, 3.3% and 5% of patients in Control, Standard and Convalescent plasma arms respectively. Conclusions: Neither high-titer Convalescent nor Standard plasma improve outcomes of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428021. First posted: 11/06/2020