Observational studyTransfusion2020
Comparative changes of pre-operative autologous transfusions and peri-operative cell salvage in the United States.
Observational study in Transfusion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Myths of Perioperative Autologous Red Blood Cell Salvage.Anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Use of donor-specific red blood cell transfusions for patients undergoing liver transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith improved safety of allogeneic blood supply, the use of preoperative autologous donations (PADs) and perioperative autologous cell salvage (PACS) has evolved. This study evaluated temporal trends in PAD and PACS use in the United States.
methodsThe National Inpatient Sample database, a stratified probability sample of 20% of hospitalizations in the United States, was used to compare temporal trends in hospitalizations reporting use of PADs and PACS from 1995 to 2015. Factors associated with their use were examined between 2012 and 2015 with use of multivariable Poisson regression. Sampling weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates.
resultsThere was a steady decrease in hospitalizations reporting PAD transfusions from 27.90 per 100 000 in 1995 to 1.48 per 100 000 hospitalizations in 2015 (P-trend <.001). In contrast, PACS increased from a rate of 1.16 per 100 000 in 1995 to peak of 20.51 per 100 000 hospitalizations in 2008 and then steadily declined (P-trend<.001). Higher odds of PACS and PADs were observed in older patients, elective procedures (vs urgent), and urban teaching/nonteaching hospitals (vs rural hospitals) (P < .001). PACS was more common in hospitalizations in patients with higher levels of severity of illness as compared to those with minor severity (adjusted prevalence ratio [adjPR], 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-2.73; P<.001), while PADs were performed less often in patients with higher underlying severity of illness (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups, 4 vs 1, adjPR, 0.61; 95% CI, [0.39-0.95]; P = .028).
conclusionsThere was a significant decrease in PAD red blood cell transfusions, while PACS has increased and subsequently decreased; PACS plays an important role in surgical blood conservation. The subsequent decline in PACS likely reflects further optimization of transfusion practice through patient blood management programs and improvement of surgical interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.