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

Khalid S Khan, Philip A S Moore, Matthew J Wilson, Richard Hooper, Shubha Allard, Ian Wrench, Lee Beresford, Tracy E Roberts, Carol McLoughlin, James Geoghegan, Jane P Daniels, Sue Catling, Vicki A Clark, Paul Ayuk, Stephen Robson, Fang Gao-Smith, Matthew Hogg, Doris Lanz, Julie Dodds and on behalf of the SALVO study Group

PLOS Medicine, 2017, vol. 14, issue 12, 1-19

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. In a multi-center randomized trial, Khalid Khan and colleagues examine the effect of routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section vs. standard care on the donor blood transfusion rates.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002471 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/fil ... 02471&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002471

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002471

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Medicine from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosmedicine ().