Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 2;13(5):952.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13050952.

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue

Collaborators, Affiliations

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue

Marco Catarci et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs.

Keywords: anastomotic leakage; blood transfusion; colorectal surgery; morbidity; mortality; transfusion hazards.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Catarci reports personal fees from Baxter Spa outside the submitted work. Guadagni, Masedu, Montemurro, Ciano, Benedetti, Delrio, Garulli, Pirozzi, Scatizzi, and all other co-authors have no competing interests to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement guidelines [17] and to the Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis [18]: iCral: Italian ColoRectal Anastomotic Leakage study group; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; IPBT: intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusion(s); and ERP: enhanced recovery pathway.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Jitter plot distribution of propensity scores in treatment and control groups; (b) Love plot of covariates’ standardized mean differences between treatment and control groups before and after matching; the vertical lines represent the interval of ±0.1 and within which balance is considered to be acceptable.

References

    1. Beattie W.S., Karkouti K., Wijeysundera D.N., Tait G. Risk associated with preoperative anemia in noncardiac surgery: A single-center cohort study. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:574–581. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31819878d3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fowler A.J., Ahmad T., Phull M.K., Allard S., Gillies M.A., Pearse R.M. Meta-analysis of the association between preoperative anaemia and mortality after surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2015;102:1314–1324. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9861. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Muñoz M., Acheson A.G., Auerbach M., Besser M., Habler O., Kehlet H., Liumbruno G.M., Lasocki S., Meybohm P., Rao Baikady R., et al. International consensus statement on the peri-operative management of anaemia and iron deficiency. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:233–247. doi: 10.1111/anae.13773. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ponnusamy K.E., Kim T.J., Khanuja H.S. Perioperative blood transfusions in orthopaedic surgery. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2014;96:1836–1844. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00128. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kumar A. Perioperative management of anemia: Limits of blood transfusion and alternatives to it. Clevel. Clin. J. Med. 2009;76((Suppl. 4)):S112–S118. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.76.s4.18. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources