Cell salvage and donor blood transfusion during cesarean section: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (SALVO)

Khalid S. Khan(Queen Mary University of London), Philip Moore(Birmingham Women's Hospital), Matthew Wilson(University of Sheffield), Richard Hooper(Queen Mary University of London), Shubha Allard(NHS Blood and Transplant), I. Wrench(Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Lee Beresford(Queen Mary University of London), Tracy Roberts(University of Birmingham), Carol McLoughlin(University of Birmingham), James Geoghegan(Birmingham Women's Hospital), Jane Daniels(University of Nottingham), Sue Catling(Singleton Hospital), V. Clark(Edinburgh Royal Infirmary), Paul Ayuk(Royal Victoria Infirmary), Stephen C. Robson(Newcastle University), Fang Gao Smith(University of Birmingham), Matthew Hogg(Barts Health NHS Trust), Doris Lanz(Queen Mary University of London), Julie Dodds(Queen Mary University of London), on behalf of the SALVO study group
PLoS Medicine
December 19, 2017
Cited by 70Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Excessive haemorrhage at cesarean section requires donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. Cell salvage may reduce this requirement. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (at 26 obstetric units; participants recruited from 4 June 2013 to 17 April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) versus current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in cesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2 ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive babies (a secondary outcome) between groups. Among 3,028 women randomised (2,990 analysed), 95.6% of 1,498 assigned to intervention had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) versus 3.9% of 1,492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference -1.03, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.06). In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 4.6% in women assigned to control versus 3.0% in the intervention group among emergency cesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 2.2% versus 1.8% among elective cesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The rate of fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with the intervention (10.5% in the control group versus 25.6% in the intervention group, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14, p = 0.013). We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. CONCLUSIONS: The overall reduction observed in donor blood transfusion associated with the routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section was not statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN as trial number 66118656 and can be viewed on http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis