ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Retrospective evaluation of autotransfusion using a cell saver device versus allotransfusion in the perioperative management of acute hemoperitoneum in 43 dogs (2017-2021).
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cell saver (CS) technology is an increasingly popular approach for autotransfusion in small animal veterinary medicine for the treatment of patients with abdominal hemorrhagic effusion. Objective: To evaluate the utility, effectiveness, and safety of autotransfusions collected with a CS device and to assess whether the use of the CS device reduces the demand for allogenic blood transfusions. Materials and methods: Retrospective study of dogs with acute hemoperitoneum of splenic origin treated surgically. Dogs were grouped by the type of transfusion received: allo- and autotransfusion (AA), allotransfusion only (AO), autotransfusion only (CS), and no transfusion (NT). Differences in changes of laboratory parameters (hematocrit and lactate), transfusion volume, and outcomes were analyzed across groups. Results: Forty-three dogs were included. Twenty-seven (62.8%) suffered from hemangiosarcoma, and 16 (37.2%) had a benign cause of hemoperitoneum. The classification into blood transfusion groups was as follows: 7/43 (16.3%) in the AA-group, 11/43 (25.6%) in the AO-group, 11/43 (25.6%) in the CS-group and 14/43 (32.6%) in the NT-group. Increase in hematocrit over time was similar in all subgroups that received any form of blood transfusion (AA-, AO-, CS-group). Total volume of transfused blood (autologous and allogenic) was significantly higher in the AA-group (median 54.0mL/kg, range 24.7-126.5mL/kg) than in the AO-group (median 7.6mL/kg, range 4.6-13.5mL/kg, Discussion: The use of autologous blood transfusions obtained by CS device in dogs suffering from acute hemoperitoneum caused by a benign or malignant splenic disorder appeared safe and effective in the cases described. And therefore may emphasize its further application as an addition or alternative to traditional allogenic blood transfusions.
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.