Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 67185

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferences
Readers' Comments (0) Article in PDF Audio Visual Citation Manager Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri

"The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) has been in operation since almost a decade. It has contributed a huge number of peer reviewed articles, across a spectrum of medical disciplines, to the medical literature.
Its wide based indexing and open access publications attracts many authors as well as readers
For authors, the manuscripts can be uploaded online through an easily navigable portal, on other hand, reviewers appreciate the systematic handling of all manuscripts. The way JCDR has emerged as an effective medium for publishing wide array of observations in Indian context, I wish the editorial team success in their endeavour"



Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri
Faculty, Pediatric Medicine
Super Speciality Paediatric Hospital and Post Graduate Teaching Institute, Noida
On Sep 2018




Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2007 | Month : October | Volume : 1 | Issue : 5 | Page : 356 - 360

Equal Blood Conservation In On- And Off-Pump Coronary Bypass Operation With The Routine Use Of Cell Saver

DEVBHANDARI M *,ABID Q**,AU J***, DUNCAN A J***

*Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, United Kingdom ** University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke on Trent, United Kingdom *** Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, United Kingdom

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Mohan Devbhandari, Department of Cardiothoracic, Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, United Kingdom Tel: +44 161 9803100 Fax: +44 161 2912685 Email:mohandev@hotmail.com

Abstract

Background: The limitations of recent studies comparing usage of blood products in on and off- pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been the routine use of cell saver in the former but not in the latter group. We routinely use cell savers in both on- and off-pump coronary bypasses. We analysed our prospectively collected data to get a more balanced comparison of the two methods.
Methods: Data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing isolated CABG from January 2003 to December 2004. One hundred and seventy-four patients operated on using off-pump technique (OPCAB) were compared with 1125 on-pump cases (ONCAB). They were well matched in terms of age, sex, disease severity, and priority of surgery.
Results: There were no significant differences between OPCAB and ONCAB groups in terms of usage of red cells (18% vs. 21%, p not significant (NS)), platelet (6% vs. 7%, p NS), fresh frozen plasma (6% vs. 10%, p NS), chest drain output at 12 hours (mean 802 vs. 856 ml, p NS), or pre-discharge haemoglobin (10  1 vs. 9  1 g/dl, p NS).
Conclusion: The routine use of cell saver can achieve the same blood conservation in both on- and off-pump CABG.

Keywords

CABG, blood transfusion, cell saver

How to cite this article :

DEVBHANDARI M, ABID Q, AU J, DUNCAN A J. EQUAL BLOOD CONSERVATION IN ON- AND OFF-PUMP CORONARY BYPASS OPERATION WITH THE ROUTINE USE OF CELL SAVER. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research [serial online] 2007 October [cited: 2018 Nov 17 ]; 1:356-360. Available from
http://www.jcdr.net/back_issues.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2007&month=October&volume=1&issue=5&page=356-360&id=110

Introduction
Out of 2.2 million units of blood issued by National Blood Service in England 10% are used in cardiac surgery (1). Despite institutional efforts to minimize the use of blood transfusions in cardiac surgery the frequency of blood transfusions still remains high ranging from 30 to 80% (2),(3). Coronary artery bypass grafting(CABG) is the commonest cardiac operation which leads to blood transfusion to patients. Blood is an expensive and scarce resource. Its use has been proven to be associated with higher incidence of bacterial infection (4), pneumonia, renal dysfunction, severe sepsis, hospital mortality and poorer long-term survival (5). Need of transfusion in conventional on pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCAB) is perceived to be due to the association of the cardiopulmonary bypass with haemodilution and consumptive coagualopathy of clotting factors. Recent studies [6,7] have suggested off pump coronoary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) results in less blood transfusion. However the limitations of those studies were that the cell saver was used in the off-pump group and not in the on-pump group.

To minimise blood usage a variety of pharmacological, mechanical, and operative strategies have been in use. The cell saver is an established mechanical device to reduce blood loss in cardiac surgery (8). They wash the salvaged blood and permit re-infusion of concentrated erythrocytes free from substances like soluble activated clotting factors (9), anticoagulants, white cells, platelets, soluble haemoglobin, intracellular enzymes, etc. The safety and cost effectiveness (10),(11),(12) of these devices are well established in cardiac surgery. We hypothesised that the cell saver is the essential variable for blood conservation and not the elimination of CPB. If we use cell savers in both the groups of patients, there is no real difference between the two groups. We use a high-quality prospective database to collect data on all patients undergoing cardiac surgery at our institute, which is filled in at each successive stage of patient care by the relevant health-care professional and then verified by a dedicated audit officer. To test this hypothesis we analysed the data from this database.

Material and Methods

Patients
Between January 2003 and December 2004, a total of 1299 consecutive isolated coronary bypass operations were carried out. Off-pump approach was used in 174 patients (OPCAB) whereas on-pump approach (ONCAB) was used in 1125 patients. Selection of surgical technique was based on surgeon preference and expertise. A single surgeon operated on all of OPCAB patients, whereas four surgeons operated on ONCAB patients. The surgeon performing off-pump operations chose all cases to be performed off pump, except a small number of cases given away to the trainees.

Anaesthesia and operative techniques
The anaesthetic techniques were standardised for both groups. We used Medtronic cell savers (Medtronic Limited, UK) in both the groups. A continuous flow of heparinised saline brought the blood to cell saver. In the OPCAB group, all patients were operated using suction-based mechanical stabilisers for positioning. Heparin was used at 2 mg/kg to achieve a target-activated clotting time (ACT) of 400 seconds before first anastomosis or division of internal mammary artery. At the end of operation, it was reversed fully with protamine. The cell saver was used throughout the operation to salvage blood.

In the on-pump group, heparin was administered at 3 mg/kg either at the time of division of the internal mammary artery or at the time of cannulation. A target ACT of more than 480 seconds was achieved. Medtronic Biomedicus centrifugal pump (Medtronic Limited, UK) was used along with a membrane oxygenator. Cold blood cardioplegia or intermittent fibrillation techniques were used for myocardial preservation, along with moderate systemic hypothermia of 28–32C, depending on surgeon preference. Some patients (9.7%), mainly during re-operations, received aprotonin on the pump. The cell savers were used from the time of incision till full heparinization and then from the time of protamine reversal to the end of the operation. At the end, the pump contents were emptied into the cell savers.

Transfusion protocol
Postoperative blood loss was measured as chest drain output from the time patients left the theatre. A strict transfusion protocol was formulated and adhered to. Excessive bleeding was defined as bleeding in excess of 250 ml/hr over 2 consecutive hours. Prolongation of ACT for more that 30 seconds of base line was treated with extra dose of protamine. They were transfused with blood (suspended in saline–adenine–glucose–mannitol – SAGM) if haemoglobin was less the 8 gm/dl or PCV <24%. Platelets were transfused if the patients were bleeding because of aspirin intake till surgery or had low platelet count (80,000 platelets/ml). Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) was transfused in the presence of a deranged clotting, shown by international normalised ratio (INR) greater than 1.5. The patients were reopened if they were bleeding in excess of 500 ml over the first hour, 300 ml/hr for 2 consecutive hours or 200 ml/hr for 3 consecutive hours, despite correction of coagulopathy.

Data collection and statistical Methods
Data were promptly entered at each stage into a database (Patient Analysis and Tracking Systems: Dendrite Clinical Systems, London, UK), which has five sections to be filled in by the surgeon, anaesthetist, perfusionist, and intensive care and ward staff. The resident doctor collected the transfusion data prospectively on all patients, on the first postoperative day. An audit officer verified all data by periodically matching it with the case notes.

All statistical analyses were performed using Minitab version 13 statistical package using a personal computer. All continuous data were expressed as mean +/- standard deviation for normally distributed data and as median (interquartile range) for skewed data. Parametric data were analysed with the two-sample t-test, and non-parametric data were analysed with the Mann–Whitney U-test. Categorical data were analysed using the chi-square test or the<

Results

Analysis of preoperative variables (Table/Fig 1) showed that both the groups were fairly well matched in terms of age, gender, urgency of operation, severity of disease, and respiratory and neurological co-morbidity.

However, the OPCAB group had more obesity (mean BMI 29 +/- 4 vs. 27 +/- 4 kg/m2, p < 0.01) and a tendency towards higher mortality risk score (Parsonnet score) (median of 5.5 vs. 4.0), diabetes (17% vs. 10%), and impaired left ventricular function (33% vs. 26%), though they failed to reach statistical significance. The mortality and morbidity, however, were similar between the two groups (Table/Fig 2). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the OPCAB group, with only 36% staying more that a week compared to 65% staying more than a week in the ONCAB group (p= 0.01).

Further analysis (Table/Fig 3) revealed that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of requirements of transfusion of red cells (18% vs. 21%, p NS), platelet (6% vs. 7%, p NS), and FFP (6 vs. 10, p NS) in the first 24 hours.

Not surprisingly, the chest drain output at 12 hours (mean 802 vs. 856 ml, p NS), pre-operative haemoglobin (13 +/- 1 vs. 13 +/- 1,g/dl p NS), pre-discharge haemoglobin (10 +/- 1 vs. 9 +/- 1g/dl, p NS), and reopening for bleeding (2% vs 3%, p NS) were also not significantly different. There appeared to be a significantly greater volume of blood salvaged in on-pump group (595 +/- 137 vs. 288 +/- 143 ml). This merely reflected the fact that on average about 300 ml of blood is salvaged from bypass circuit at the end of the operation, and once this was omitted the difference was insignificant.

Discussion

In a recent randomised controlled trial, McGill and associates (1) confirmed the benefit of using cell saver in the on-pump group compared to the control group, but they did not include the off-pump group in their study. Our data confirm their findings; however, these contrast with findings of Ascione et al., who showed reduced postoperative blood loss and transfusion requirement after beating-heart coronary operations (6). In a prospective randomised trial, they used the cell savers only in the off-pump group and not in the on-pump group. As evidenced by previous reports of Cosgrove et al. (13) and others, cell savers salvage on average about 250–300 ml of blood. So this volume of blood gets wasted in the on-pump group without the use of cell savers, which, at least to some extent, must have contributed to the difference in blood usage between the two groups. This drawback invalidates the conclusion from this study. It has been proved that a very low transfusion rate can be achieved even with the use of CPB, as highlighted by Helm and associates’ report (14) of 100 consecutive CABG operations without blood transfusion and Ovrum and associates’ (15) report of 97% transfusion-free operations, which included re-operations as well. The median postoperative haematocrit values in the aforementioned study (6) are nearly identical in both on- and off-pump groups and fail to account for more than double the rate of transfusion reported in the on-pump group. The use of FFP and platelets in the on-pump group seems to be much more liberal compared to other published reports in literature.

Nader and associates (16) have used the cell savers in both the groups, but they have failed to identify that about 250–300 ml of blood comes from the CPB circuit and, once this is taken into consideration, the volume of intraoperative loss remains similar between the two groups. Though these authors have mentioned that the off-pump group needed on average 2.25 units less of RBC, 1.75 units less of FFP, and 3.75 units less of platelets, they have failed to clarify what percentage of patients in each group required transfusion. Average transfusion of more than five units of red cells per patient in the on-pump group seems to be much higher than expected, according to our data and also similar data reported from other centres (13). This drawback, coupled with lack of clearly defined transfusion criteria, renders the comparison in this study inconclusive.

Our series is the first comparative study where a balanced comparison has been made by using the cell savers in both the groups, along with clear predefined transfusion criteria. Our transfusion rate is higher than reports of Helm et al (14) and Ovrum et al (15). However, our transfusion rates in both the groups are substantially lower than most of other reported series in literature, including those reported by Ascione and associates (6). A bigger and more balanced randomised controlled trial is indicated to answer this question properly.

Cell savers are not in routine use in all ONCAB cases in UK. Some earlier studies raised concern about the cost effectiveness of routine use of cell savers (17). These studies were from an earlier era, and the picture has changed considerably with several-fold increase in the cost of blood and blood products, as well as realization of greater potential dangers of blood transfusion (4),(5). In cardiac theatres, perfusionists and operating room assistants can easily be trained to run the cell saver machine, with no significant added labour cost.

Our study had some important limitations.

Conclusion

Several blood conservation techniques are currently available, which can be used in combination according to clinical circumstances to minimise the blood transfusion rate. Cell saver is an important part of an integrated, comprehensive blood conservation strategy. Routine use of this method leads to similar degree of blood conservation in on- and off-pump CABG.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Miss Catherine Malpas, Audit officer at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, who has been extremely helpful in completing the study.

References

1.
McGill N, O’Shaughnessy, Pickering R, Herbertson R, Gill R. Mechanical methods of reducing transfusion in cardiac surgery: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2002;324:1299–302.
2.
Shapira OM, Aldea GS, Treanor PR, Chartrand RM, DeAndrade KM, Lazar HL, et al. Reduction of allogenic blood transfusions after open heart operations by lowering cardiopulmonary bypass prime volume. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;65:724–30.
3.
Goodnough LT, Johnston MF, Toy P. The variability of transfusion practice in coronary artery bypass surgery. JAMA 1991;265:86–90.
4.
Chelmer SB, Prato BS, Cox PM, O’connor GT, Morton JR. Association of bacterial infection and red blood cell transfusion after coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:138–42.
5.
Engoren MC, Habib RH, Zacharias A, Schwann TA, Riordan CJ, Durham SJ. Effect of blood transfusion on long-term survival after cardiac operation. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:1180–6.
6.
Ascione R, Williams S, Lloyd C, Sundaramoorthi T, Pitsis A, Angelini G. Reduced postoperative blood loss and transfusion requirement after beating-heart coronary operations: a prospective randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;121:689–96.
7.
Chamberlain MH, Ascione R, Reeves BC, angelini GD. Evaluation of the effectiveness of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients: an observational study. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:1866–73.
8.
Chavez AM, Cosgrove DM, III. Blood conservation. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;2:358–63.
9.
Reents W, Babin-Ebell J, Misoph MR, Schwarzkopf A, Elert O. Influence of different autotransfusion devices on the quality of salvaged blood. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:58–62.
10.
Breyer RH, Engelman RM, Rousou JA, Lemeshow S. Blood conservation for myocardial revascularization. Is it cost effective? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;93:512–22.
11.
Huet C, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Koopman-van Gemert AW, Rubens F, Laupacis A. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cell salvage to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators. Anesth Analg 1999;89:861–9.
Tables and Figures
[Table / Fig - 1] [Table / Fig - 2] [Table / Fig - 3]

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .