For many years, in daily clinical practice, the traditional 10/30 rule (hemoglobin 10 g/dL – hematocrit 30%) has been the most commonly used trigger for blood transfusions. Over the years, this approach is believed to have contributed to a countless number of unnecessary transfusions and an unknown number of overtransfusion-related deaths. Recent studies have shown that lower hemoglobin levels can safely be accepted, even in critically ill patients. However, even these new transfusion thresholds are far beyond the theoretical limits of individual anemia tolerance. For this reason, almost all publications addressing the limits of acute anemia recommend physiological transfusion triggers to indicate the transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates as an alternative. Although this concept appears intuitive at first glance, no solid scientific evidence supports the safety and benefit of physiological transfusion triggers to indicate the optimal time point for transfusion of allogeneic blood. It is therefore imperative to continue searching for the most sensitive and specific parameters that can guide the clinician when to transfuse in order to avoid anemia-induced organ dysfunction while avoiding overtransfusion-related adverse effects. This narrative review discusses the concept of anemia tolerance and critically compares hemoglobin-based triggers with physiological transfusion for various clinical indications.

BACKGROUND: Massive perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion, that is, perioperative transfusion of more than 10 units of packed red blood cells (pRBC), is one of the main contributors to perioperative morbidity and mortality in cardiac surgery. Prediction of perioperative blood transfusion might enable preemptive treatment strategies to reduce risk and improve patient outcomes while reducing resource utilisation. We, therefore, investigated the precision of five different machine learning algorithms to predict the occurrence of massive perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac surgery at our centre. OBJECTIVE: Is it possible to predict massive perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion using machine learning? DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Single adult cardiac surgery centre in Austria between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were the number of patients receiving at least 10 units pRBC, the area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristics curve, the F1 score, and the negative-predictive (NPV) and positive-predictive values (PPV) of the five machine learning algorithms used to predict massive perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. RESULTS: A total of 3782 (1124 female:) patients were enrolled and 139 received at least 10 pRBC units. Using all features available at hospital admission, massive perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion could be excluded rather accurately. The best area under the curve was achieved by Random Forests: 0.810 (0.76 to 0.86) with high NPV of 0.99). This was still true using only the eight most important features [area under the curve 0.800 (0.75 to 0.85)]. CONCLUSION: Machine learning models may provide clinical decision support as to which patients to focus on for perioperative preventive treatment in order to preemptively reduce massive perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion by predicting, which patients are not at risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Johannes Kepler University Ethics Committee Study Number 1091/2021, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04856618.

Objective: There is a lack of comprehensive international data regarding platelet transfusion practices in the ICU. This study aimed to evaluate the current occurrence rate of platelet transfusion in the ICU and provide an overview of platelet transfusion practices including indications for a platelet transfusion, thresholds, (non-)adherence and geo-economic region variations. Design: International prospective cohort study. Setting: Two hundred thirty-three centers in 30 countries worldwide. Patients: All patients 18 years old and older, admitted to the ICU during a single study week, selected by each site from one of the 16 predefined weeks (March 2019 to October 2022), were included. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 3643 patients, 208 (6%) received a platelet transfusion during their ICU stay and main indications consisted of active bleeding (42%, n = 187/443), prophylaxis (33%, n = 144/443) or an upcoming procedure (12%, n = 51/443). The median platelet count before transfusion was 44 × 10 ⁹ /L (interquartile range [IQR], 20–78) with variation by indication, including a higher median of 60 × 10 ⁹ /L (IQR 31–93) during active bleeding. A threshold for transfusion was stated in 51% ( n = 224/443) of the events, with a median threshold platelet count of 50 × 10 ⁹ /L (IQR, 40–100). The advised threshold was not adhered to in 16% ( n = 36/224) of cases, with the majority having active bleeding as indication. Contrasts in transfusion practices were observed across different geo-economic regions. Platelet transfusions were administered to 6% ( n = 156/2520) of patients in high-income countries, 5% ( n = 52/1069) of patients in upper-middle-income countries and in none from lower-middle-income countries ( n = 0/54). Non-adherence was higher in the high-income countries (23%, n = 34/149) than upper-middle-income countries (3%, n = 2/75). Conclusions: Platelet transfusions were administered to a small proportion of critically ill patients, and were given to treat active bleeding or as prophylaxis in the majority of cases. Occurence rate, indication and threshold adherence for platelet transfusion widely varied between geo-economic regions.

Background: Differences in blood pressure can influence the risk of brain ischemia, perioperative complications, and postoperative neurocognitive function in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Methods: In this single-center trial, patients scheduled for CEA under general anesthesia were randomized into an intervention group receiving near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)-guided blood pressure management during carotid cross-clamping and a control group receiving standard care. The primary endpoint was postoperative neurocognitive function assessed before surgery, on postoperative days 1 and 7, and eight weeks after surgery. Perioperative complications and cerebral autoregulatory capacity were secondary endpoints. Results: Systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001) and norepinephrine doses (89 (54–122) vs. 147 (116–242) µg; p < 0.001) during carotid cross-clamping were lower in the intervention group. No group differences in postoperative neurocognitive function were observed. The rate of perioperative complications was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (3.3 vs. 26.7%, p = 0.03). The breath-holding index did not differ between groups. Conclusions: Postoperative neurocognitive function was comparable between CEA patients undergoing general anesthesia in whom arterial blood pressure during carotid cross-clamping was guided using NIRS and subjects receiving standard care. NIRS-guided, individualized arterial blood pressure management resulted in less vasopressor exposition and a lower rate of perioperative complications.

Over the last decades, individualized approaches and a better understanding of coagulopathy complexity in end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients has evolved. The risk of both thrombosis and bleeding during minimally invasive interventions or surgery is associated with a worse outcome in this patient population. Despite deranged quantitative and qualitative coagulation laboratory parameters, prophylactic coagulation management is unnecessary for patients who do not bleed. Transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) and blood products carries independent risks for morbidity and mortality, including modulation of the immune system with increased risk for nosocomial infections. Optimal coagulation management in these complex patients should be based on the analysis of standard coagulation tests (SCTs) and viscoelastic tests (VETs). VETs represent an individualized approach to patients and can provide information about coagulation dynamics in a concise period of time. This narrative review will deliver the pathophysiology of deranged hemostasis in ESLD, explore the difficulties of evaluating the coagulopathies in liver disease patients, and examine the use of VET assays and management of coagulopathy using coagulation factors. Methods: A selective literature search with PubMed as the central database was performed with the following.

For many years, physicians’ approach to the transfusion of allogeneic red blood cells (RBC) was not individualized. It was accepted that a hemoglobin concentration (Hb) of less than 10 g/dL was a general transfusion threshold and the majority of patients were transfused immediately. In recent years, there has been increasing evidence that even significantly lower hemoglobin concentrations can be survived in the short term without sequelae. This somehow contradicts the observation that moderate or mild anemia is associated with relevant long-term morbidity and mortality. To resolve this apparent contradiction, it must be recognized that we have to avoid acute anemia or treat it by alternative methods. The aim of this article is to describe the physiological limits of acute anemia, match these considerations with clinical realities, and then present “patient blood management” (PBM) as the therapeutic concept that can prevent both anemia and unnecessary transfusion of RBC concentrates in a clinical context, especially in Intensive Care Units (ICU). This treatment concept may prove to be the key to high-quality patient care in the ICU setting in the future.