Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Rescate celular para disminuir la transfusión perioperatoria de sangre alogénica

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Adalberth 1998 {published data only}

Adalberth G, Bystrom S, Kolstad K, Mallmin H, Milbrink J. Postoperative drainage of knee arthroplasty is not necessary ‐ A randomised study of 90 patients. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1998;69(5):475‐8.

Axford 1994 {published data only}

Axford TC, Dearani JA, Ragno G, MacGregor H, Patel MA, Valeri CR, Khuri SF. Safety and therapeutic effectiveness of reinfused shed blood after open heart surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1994;57(3):615‐22.

Ayers 1995 {published data only}

Ayers DC, Murray DG, Duerr DM. Blood salvage after total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ‐ American Volume 1995;77(9):1347‐51.

Bouboulis 1994 {published data only}

Bouboulis N, Kardara M, Kesteven PJ, Jayakrishnan AG. Autotransfusion after coronary artery bypass surgery: is there any benefit?. Journal of Cardiac Surgery 1994;9(3):314‐21.

Clagett 1999 {published data only}

Clagett GP, Valentine RJ, Jackson MR, Mathison C, Kakish HB, Bengtson TD. A randomised trial of intraoperative autotransfusion during aortic surgery. Journal of Vascular Surgery 1999;29(1):22‐31.

Dalrymple‐Hay 1999 {published data only}

Dalrymple‐Hay MJR, Pack L, Deakin CD, Shepherd S, Ohri SK, Haw MP, Livesey SA, Monro JL. Autotransfusion of washed shed mediastinal fluid decreases requirement for autologous blood transfusion following cardiac surgery: A prospective randomized trial. European Journal of Cardio‐thoracic Surgery 1999;15:830‐4.

Davies 1987 {published data only}

Davies MJ, Cronin KC, Moran P, Mears L, Booth RJ. Autologous blood transfusion for major vascular surgery using the Sorenson Receptal Device. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 1987;15(3):282‐8.

Dietrich 1989 {published data only}

Dietrich W, Barankay A, Dilthey G, Mitto HP, Richter JA. Reduction of blood utilization during myocardial revascularization. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 1989;97(2):213‐9.

Ekback 1995 {published data only}

Ekback G, Schott U, Axelsson K, Carberg M. Perioperative autotransfusion and functional coagulation analysis in total hip replacement. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1995;39:390‐5. [MEDLINE: 1919270]

Elawad 1991 {published data only}

Elawad AA, Ohlin AK, Berntorp E, Nilsson IM, Fredin H. Intraoperative autotransfusion in primary hip arthroplasty. A randomized comparison with homologous blood. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1991;62(6):557‐62.

Eng 1990 {published data only}

Eng J, Kay PH, Murday AJ, Shreiti I, Harrison DP, Norfolk DR, et al. Postoperative autologous transfusion in cardiac surgery. A prospective, randomised study. European Journal of Cardiothorac Surgery 1990;4(11):595‐600.

Fragnito 1995 {published data only}

Fragnito C, Beghi C, Cavozza C, Saccani S, Contini SA, Barboso G. Autotransfusion of the blood drained from mediastinum in the course of myocardial revascularization. Acta Bio‐Medica de l Ateneo Parmense 1995;66(5):195‐201.

Gannon 1991 {published data only}

Gannon DM, Lombardi AV, Jr, Mallory TH, Vaughn BK, Finney, CR, Niemcryk S. An evaluation of the efficacy of postoperative blood salvage after total joint arthroplasty. A prospective randomized trial. Journal of Arthroplasty 1991;6(2):109‐14.

Healy 1994 {published data only}

Healy WL, Pfeifer BA, Kurtz SR, Johnson C, Johnson W, Johnston R, et al. Evaluation of autologous shed blood for autotransfusion after orthopaedic surgery. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1994, (299):53‐9.

Heddle 1992 {published data only}

Heddle NM, Brox WT, Klama LL, Dickson LL, Levine MN. A randomized trial on the efficacy of an autologous blood drainage and transfusion device in patients undergoing elective knee arthroplasty. Transfusion 1992;32:742‐6.

Kelley 1993 {published data only}

Kelley‐Patteson C, Ammar AD, Kelley H. Should the Cell Saver Autotransfusion Device be used routinely in all infrarenal abdominal aortic bypass operations?. Journal of Vascular Surgery 1993;18(2):261‐5.

Koopman 1993a {published data only}

Koopman‐van Germert AWMM. Peri‐operative autotransfusion by means of a blood cell separator. Processed autotransfusion and homologous red cell requirement in elective cardiac and orthopaedic surgery: a randomised prospective study. Den Haag: Cip‐Data Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Vol. Chapter 5, 1993:96‐112.

Koopman 1993b {published data only}

Koopman‐van Germert AWMM. Peri‐operative autotransfusion by means of a blood cell separator. Processed autotransfusion and homologous red cell requirement in elective cardiac and orthopaedic surgery: a randomised prospective study. Den Haag: Cip‐Data Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Vol. Chapter 5, 1993:96‐112.

Laub 1993 {published data only}

Laub GW, Dharan M, Riebman JB, Chen C, Moore R, Bailey BM, et al. The impact of intraoperative autotransfusion on cardiac surgery. A prospective randomized double‐blind study. Chest 1993;104(3):686‐9.

Lepore 1989 {published data only}

Lepore V, Radegran K. Autotransfusion of mediastinal blood in cardiac surgery. Scandinavian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 1989;23(1):47‐9.

Lorentz 1991 {published data only}

Lorentz A, Osswald PM, Schilling M, Jani L. A comparison of autologous transfusion procedures in hip surgery. Anaesthesist 1991;40(4):205‐13.

Mah 1995 {published data only}

Mah ET, Davis R, Seshadri P, Nyman TLM, Seshadri R. The role of autologous blood transfusion in joint replacement. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care 1995;23:472‐7.

Majowski 1991 {published data only}

Majkowski RS, Currie IC, Newman JH. Postoperative collection and reinfusion of autologous blood in total knee arthroplasty. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1991;73(6):381‐4.

Martin 2000 {published data only}

Martin J, Robitaille D, Perrault LP, Pellerin M, Page P, Searle N, et al. Reinfusion of mediastinal blood after heart surgery. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2000;120(3):499‐504.

Mauerhan 1993 {published data only}

Mauerhan DR, Nussman D, Mokris JG, Beaver WB. Effect of postoperative reinfusion systems on hemoglobin levels in primary total hip and total knee arthroplasties. A prospective randomized study. Journal of Arthroplasty 1993;8(5):523‐7.

McGill 2002 {published data only}

McGill N, O'Shaughnessy D, Pickering R, Herbertson M, Gill R. Mechanical methods of reducing blood transfusion in cardiac surgery: randomised controlled trial. [erratum appears in BMJ 2002 Jul 20;325(7356):142]. BMJ 2002;324(7349):1299. [MEDLINE: 6]

Menges 1992 {published data only}

Menges T, Rupp D, van Lessen A, Hempelmann G. Effects on coagulation parameters of different methods of autologous blood transfusion. Anaesthesist 1992;41:27‐33.

Naumenko 2003 {published data only}

Naumenko SE, Pokrovskii MG, Belavin AS, Kim SF. Blood‐saving effectiveness of preoperative reservation of autoblood for surgical treatment of ischaemic heart disease. Vestnik khirurgii imeni I. I. Grekova 2003;162:59‐64.

Newman 1997 {published data only}

Newman JH, Bowers M, Murphy J. The clinical advantages of autologous transfusion. A randomized, controlled study after knee replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ‐ British Volume 1997;79(4):630‐2.

Page 1989 {published data only}

Page R, Russell GN, Fox MA, Fabri BM, Lewis I, Williets T. Hard‐shell cardiotomy reservoir for reinfusion of shed mediastinal blood. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1989;48(4):514‐7.

Parrot 1991 {published data only}

Parrot D, Lancon JP, Merle JP, Rerolle A, Bernard A, Obadia JF, Caillard B. Blood salvage in cardiac surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 1991;5(5):454‐6.

Riou 1994 {published data only}

Riou B, Arock M, Guerrero M, Ramos M, Thoreux P, Guillosson JJ, et al. Haematological effects of postoperative autotransfusion in spinal surgery. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1994;38(4):336‐41.

Rollo 1995 {published data only}

Rollo VJ, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Chao W, Eng KO. Prospective randomized evaluation of blood salvage techniques for primary total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 1995;10(4):532‐9.

Rollo 1995a {published data only}

Rollo VJ, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Chao W, Eng KO. Prospective randomized evaluation of blood salvage techniques for primary total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 1995;10(4):532‐9.

Rollo 1995b {published data only}

Rollo VJ, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Chao W, Eng KO. Prospective randomized evaluation of blood salvage techniques for primary total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 1995;10(4):532‐9.

Rosencher 1994 {published data only}

Rosencher N, Vassilieff V, Tallet F, Toulon P, Leoni J, Tomeno B, Conseiller C. Comparison of Orth‐Evac and Solcotrans Plus devices for the autotransfusion of blood drained after total knee joint arthroplasty. Annales Francaises d Anesthesie et de Reanimation 1994;13(3):318‐25.

Sait 1999 {published data only}

Sait MS, Earnshaw P. Autotransfusion in total knee arthroplasty ‐ Is it worth the effort?. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ‐ British Volume 1999;81(Suppl. 2):244.

Schaff 1978a {published data only}

Schaff HV, Hauer JM, Bell WR, Gardner TJ, Donahoo JS, Gott VL, Brawley RK. Autotransfusion of shed mediastinal blood after cardiac surgery. A prospective study. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 1978;75(4):632‐41.

Schmidt 1996 {published data only}

Schmidt H, Folsgaard S, Mortensen PE, Jensen E. Impact of autotransfusion after coronary artery bypass grafting on oxygen transport. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1997;41(8):995‐1001.

Schonberger 1993 {published data only}

Schonberger JP, Bredee J, Speekenbrink RG, Everts PA, Wildevuur CR. Autotransfusion of shed blood contributes additionally to blood saving in patients receiving aprotinin (2 million KIU). European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 1993;7(9):474‐7.

Shenolikar 1997 {published data only}

Shenolikar A, Wareham K, Newington D, Thomas D, Hughes J, Downes M. Cell salvage auto transfusion in total knee replacement surgery. Transfusion Medicine 1997;7(4):277‐80.

Shirvani 1991 {published data only}

Shirvani R. An evaluation of clinical aspects of post‐operative autotransfusion, either alone or in conjunction with pre‐operative aspirin, in cardiac surgery. British Journal of Clinical Practice 1991;45(2):105‐8.

Simpson 1994 {published data only}

Simpson MB, Murphy KP, Chambers HG, Bucknell AL. The effect of postoperative wound drainage reinfusion in reducing the need for blood transfusions in elective total joint arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Orthopedics 1994;17(2):133‐7.

Slagis 1991 {published data only}

Slagis SV, Benjamin JB, Volz RG, Giordano GF. Postoperative blood salvage in total hip and knee arthroplasty. A randomised controlled trial [see comments]. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ‐ British Volume 1991;73(4):591‐4.

Spark 1997 {published data only}

Spark JI, Chetter IC, Kester RC, Scott DJ. Allogeneic versus autologous blood during abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 1997;14(6):482‐6.

Tempe 1996 {published data only}

Tempe D, Bajwa R, Cooper A, Nag B, Tomar AS, Khanna SK, et al. Blood conservation in small adults undergoing valve surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 1996;10(4):502‐6.

Tempe 2001 {published data only}

Tempe DK, Banerjee A, Virmani S, Mehta N, Panwar S, Tomar AS, et al. Comparison of the effects of a cell saver and low dose aprotinin on blood loss and homologous blood usage in patients undergoing valve surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 2001;15(3):326‐30.

Thomas 2001 {published data only}

Thomas D, Wareham K, Cohen D, Hutchings H. Autologous blood transfusion in total knee replacement surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2001;86(5):669‐73. [MEDLINE: 70]

Thurer 1979 {published data only}

Thurer RL, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, Loop FD. Autotransfusion following cardiac operations: a randomized, prospective study. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1979;27(6):500‐7.

Unsworth 1996 {published data only}

Unsworth‐White MJ, Kallis P, Cowan D, Tooze JA, Bevan DH, Treasure T. A prospective randomised controlled trial of postoperative autotransfusion with and without a heparin‐bonded circuit. European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 1996;10(1):38‐47.

Ward 1993 {published data only}

Ward HB, Smith RR, Landis KP, Nemzek TG, Dalmasso AP, Swaim WR. Prospective, randomized trial of autotransfusion after routine cardiac operations [see comments]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1993;56(1):137‐41.

Zhao 1996 {published data only}

Zhao K, Xiao M, Deng S. Autotransfusion of shed medistinal blood after open heart operation. Chinese Journal of Surgery 1996;34(8):497‐9.

Zhao 2003 {published data only}

Zhao K, Xu J, Hu S, Wu Q, Wei Y, Liu Y. Autotransfusion of shed mediastinal blood after open heart surgery. Chinese Medical Journal 2003;116:1179‐82.

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Adan 1988 {published data only}

Adan A, Brutel de la Riviere A, Haas F, van Zalk A, de Nooij E. Autotransfusion of drained mediastinal blood after cardiac surgery: a reappraisal. Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 1988;36(1):10‐14.

Bartels 1996 {published data only}

Bartels C, Bechtel JV, Winkler C, Horsch S. Intraoperative autotransfusion in aortic surgery: comparison of whole blood autotransfusion versus cell separation. Journal of Vascular Surgery 1996;24(1):102‐8.

Bell 1992 {published data only}

Bell K, Stott K, Sinclair CJ, Walker WS, Gillon J. A controlled trial of intra‐operative autologous transfusion in cardiothoracic surgery measuring effect on transfusion requirements and clinical outcome. Transfusion Medicine 1992;2(4):295‐300.

Breakwell 2000 {published data only}

Breakwell LM, Getty CJM, Dobson P. The efficacy of autologous blood transfusion in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2000;7(3):145‐7.

Dalrymple‐Hay 2001 {published data only}

Dalrymple‐Hay MJR, Dawkins S, Pack L, Deakin CD, Sheppard S, Ohri SK, et al. Autotransfusion decreases blood usage following cardiac surgery ‐ A prospective randomized trial. Cardiovascular Surgery 2001;9(2):184‐7.

Deramoudt 1991 {published data only}

Deramoudt V, Menestret P, Melledant Y, et al. Autologous transfusion in cardiac surgery [Transfusion autologue en chirurgie cardiaque (a propos de 74 patients)]. Cahiers D Anesthesiologie 1991;39(3):153‐9.

Elawad 1992 {published data only}

Elawad AA, Ohlin AK, Berntorp E, Nilsson IM, Fredin H. Autologous blood transfusion in revision hip arthroplasty. A prospective, controlled study of 30 patients. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1992;63(4):373‐6.

Farrer 1997 {published data only}

Farrer A, Spark JI, Scott DJ. Autologous blood transfusion: the benefits to the patient undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Nursing 1997;15(4):111‐5.

Jacobi 1997 {published data only}

Jacobi K, Walther A, Kuhn R, Dworak O, Neidhardt B, Rugheimer E. Advantages and limitations of intraoperative mechanical autotransfusion in radical prostatectomies. Anaesthetist 1997;46(2):101‐7.

Kristensen 1992 {published data only}

Kristensen PW, Sorensen LS, Thyregod HC. Autotransfusion of drainage blood in arthroplasty. A prospective, controlled study of 31 operations. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1992;63(4):377‐80.

Mac 1993 {published data only}

Mac HL, Reynolds MA, Treston‐Aurand J, Henke JA. Comparison of autoreinfusion and standard drainage systems in total joint arthroplasty patients. Orthopaedic Nursing 1993;12(3):19‐25.

Mayer 1985 {published data only}

Mayer ED, Welsch M, Tanzeem A, Saggau W, Spath J, Hummels R, Schmitz W. Reduction of postoperative donor blood requirement by use of the cell separator. Scandinavian Journal of Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery 1985;19(2):165‐71.

McShane 1987 {published data only}

McShane AJ, Power C, Jackson JF, Murphy DF, MacDonald A, Moriarty DC, Otridge BW. Autotransfusion: quality of blood prepared with a red cell processing device. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1987;59(8):1035‐9.

Schaff 1978b {published data only}

Schaff HV, Hauer JM, Brawley RK. Autotransfusion in cardiac surgical patients after operation. Surgery 1978;84(5):713‐8.

Schmidt 1997a {published data only}

Schmidt H, Folsgaard S, Mortensen PE, Jensen E. Impact of autotransfusion after coronary artery bypass grafting on oxygen transport. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1997;41:995‐1001.
Schmidt H, Lund JO, Nielsen SL. Autotransfused shed mediastinal blood has normal erythrocyte survival. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1996;62(1):105‐8.

Schmidt 1997b {published data only}

Schmidt H, Folsgaard S, Mortensen PE, Jensen E. Cardiac enzymes and autotransfusion of shed mediastinal blood after myocardial revascularization. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1997;63:1288‐92.

Skoura 1997 {published data only}

Skoura H, Anastasiou E, Moshou A, Katsioulas A, Kostaki S. Value of autologous blood for intra‐operative massive bleeding. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 1997;14(1):103.

Thompson 1990 {published data only}

Thompson JF, Webster JH, Chant AD. Prospective randomised evaluation of a new cell saving device in elective aortic reconstruction. European Journal of Vascular Surgery 1990;4(5):507‐12.

Trubel 1995 {published data only}

Trubel W, Gunen E, Wuppinger G, Tschernko E, Gunen‐Frank A, Staudacher M, et al. Recovery of intraoperatively shed blood in aortoiliac surgery: comparison of cell washing with simple filtration. Thorac Cardiovascular Surgery 1995;43(3):165‐70.

Vertrees 1996 {published data only}

Vertrees RA, Conti VR, Lick SD, Zwischenberger JB, McDaniel LB, Shulman G. Adverse effects of postoperative infusion of shed mediastinal blood. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1996;62(3):717‐23.

Referencias adicionales

Brown 2000

Brown P. BSE and transmission through blood. Lancet 2000;356(September,16):955‐6.

Bryson 1998

Bryson GL, Laupacis A, Wells GA. Does acute normovolemic hemodilution reduce perioperative allogeneic transfusion? A meta‐analysis. The International Study of Perioperative Transfusion. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1998;86(1):9‐15.

Carson 1998

Carson JL, Terrin ML, Barton FB, Aaron R, Greenburg AG, Heck DA, et al. A pilot randomized trial comparing symptomatic vs. hemoglobin‐level‐driven red blood cell transfusions following hip fracture. Transfusion 1998;38(6):522‐9.

Carson 2002

Carson JL, Hill S, Carless P, Hebert P, Henry D. Transfusion triggers: a systematic review of the literature. Transfusion Medicine Reviews 2002;16(3):187‐99.

Cook 1991

Cook SS, Epps J. Transfusion practice in central Virginia. Transfusion 1991;31(4):355‐60.

Coyle 1999

Coyle D, Lee KM, Fergusson DA, Laupacis A. Economic analysis of erythropoietin use in orthopaedic surgery. Transfusion Medicine 1999;9(1):21‐30.

Der Simonian 1986

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177‐88.

Dickersin 1996 [Computer program]

Dickersin K, Larson K. Establishing and maintaining an international register of RCTs. Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford. United Kingdom. Oxford.United Kingdom.(UK): Cochrane Collaboration, 1996.

Faught 1998

Faught C, Wells P, Fergusson D, Laupacis A. Adverse effects of methods for minimizing perioperative allogeneic transfusion: a critical review of the literature. [Review] [196 refs]. Transfusion Medicine Reviews 1998;12(3):206‐25.

Fergusson 1999a

Fergusson D, van Walraven C, Coyle D, Laupacis A. Economic evaluations of technologies to minimize perioperative transfusion: a systematic review of published studies. International Study of Peri‐operative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators. Transfusion Medicine Reviews 1999;13(2):106‐17.

Fergusson 1999b

Fergusson D, Blair A, Henry D, Hisashige A, Huet C, Koopman‐van Gemer A, et al. Technologies to minimize blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. Results of a practice variation survey in nine countries. International Study of Peri‐operative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1999;15(4):717‐28.

Forgie 1998

Forgie M, Wells P, Laupacis A, Fergusson D. Pre‐operative autologous donation decreases allogeneic transfusion but increases exposure to all red cell transfusion ‐ results of a meta analysis. Archives of Internal Medicine1998; Vol. 158:610‐6.

Glynn 2000

Glynn SA, Kleinman SH, Schreiber GB. Trends in Incidence and Prevalence of Major Transfusion‐Transmissible Viral Infections in US Blood Donors, 1991 to 1996. Journal of the American Medical Association 2000;284(2):229‐35.

Hadjianastassiou 2002

Hadjianastassiou VG, Virich G, Lennox IA. Use of the blood transfusion service in total knee replacement arthroplasty. The cost implications. Knee 2002;9(2):145‐8.

Hebert 1999

Hebert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, Marshall J, Martin C, Pagliarello G, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators: Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. New England Journal of Medicine 1999;340(6):409‐17.

Henry 2003

Henry DA, Moxey AJ, Carless PA, O'Connell D, Mcclelland B, Henderson KM, Sly K, Laupacis A, Fergusson D. Anti‐fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001886.pub2]

Hill 2003

Hill SR, Carless PA, McClelland B, Henry DA, Henderson KM, Carson J, et al. Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding alogeneic red blood cell transfusion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002042]

Houston 2000

Houston F, Foster JD, Chong A, Hunter N, Bostock CJ. Transmission of BSE by blood transfusion in sheep. Lancet 2000;356(September 16):999‐1000.

Huber 1997

Huber TS, McGorray SP, Carlton LC, Irwin PB, Flug RR, Flynn TC, et al. Intraoperative autologous transfusion during elective infrarenal aortic reconstruction: A decision analysis model. Journal of Vascular Surgery 1997;25:984‐94.

Huet 1999

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. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1999;89(4):861‐9.

Jadad 1996

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17(1):1‐12.

Kimball 1995

Kimball AM, Berkley S, Ngugi E, Gayle H. International aspects of the AIDS/HIV epidemic. Annual Review of Public Health 1995;16:253‐82.

Lackritz 1998

Lackritz EM. Prevention of HIV transmission by blood transfusion in the developing world: achievements and continuing challenges. AIDS 1998;12 Suppl A:S81‐6.

Laupacis 1997

Laupacis A, Fergusson D. Drugs to minimize perioperative blood loss in cardiac surgery: meta‐analyses using perioperative blood transfusion as the outcome. International Study of Peri‐operative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1997;85(6):1258‐67.

Lenfant 1992

Lenfant C. Transfusion practice should be audited for both undertransfusion and overtransfusion. Transfusion 1992;32(9):873‐4.

McFarland 1997

McFarland W, Mvere D, Shandera W, Reingold A. Epidemiology and prevention of transfusion‐associated human immunodeficiency virus transmission in sub‐Saharan Africa. Vox Sanguinis 1997;72(2):85‐92.

Oliver 2002

Oliver AM. Strategies for handling a potentially diminished blood supply. The potential shortage. Transfusion Medicine2002; Vol. 12:1‐12.

Ray 1999

Ray MJ, Brown KF, Burrows CA, O'Brien MF. Economic evaluation of high‐dose and low‐dose aprotinin therapy during cardiopulmonary bypass. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1999;68(3):940‐5.

Regan 2002

Regan F, Taylor C. Blood transfusion medicine. BMJ 2002;325(7356):143‐7.

Schulz 1995

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995;273(5):408‐12.

Semmens 2000

Semmens JB, Lawrence‐Brown MM, Miles LE, Hellings MJ. Intraoperative blood salvage: the missing link in providing a safe and effective blood transfusion service.[comment]. Medical Journal of Australia 2000;173(5):266‐8.

Spahn 2000

Spahn DR, Casutt M. Eliminating blood transfusions: new aspects and perspectives. Anesthesiology 2000;93(1):242‐55.

Surgenor 1990

Surgenor DM, Wallace EL, Hao SH, Chapman RH. Collection and transfusion of blood in the United States, 1982‐1988. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322(23):1646‐51.

Wallace 1993

Wallace EL, Surgenor DM, Hao HS, An J, Chapman RH, Churchill WH. Collection and transfusion of blood and blood components in the United States, 1989. Transfusion 1993;33(2):139‐44.

Whyte 1997

Whyte GS, Savoia HF. The risk of transmitting HCV, HBV or HIV by blood transfusion in Victoria. Medical Journal of Australia 1997;166(11):584‐6.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Adalberth 1998

Methods

Concealment of treatment allocation was by use of sealed envelopes. Method of generating allocation sequences was not described.

Participants

90 patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty were randomised to 1 of 3 groups:
1) Group 1 (No drain group): n=30; M/F=11/13; mean age (95% CI) = 70 (67‐74) years.
2) Group 2 (Autotransfusion group): n=30; M/F=4/20; mean age (95% CI) = 71 (69‐74) years.
3) Group 3 (Control group): n=30; M/F=9/16; mean age (95% CI) = 72 (69‐75) years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: No drain was used.
(2) Group 2: Solcotrans autotransfusion system collected blood for 6 hours or until the unit was full. Acid citrate dextrose‐anticoagulant (ACD‐A) was not added to the collection unit. Continuous suction was applied at 20cm H2O. Drains were maintained for 24 hours post‐operatively.
(3) Group 3: A standard disposable closed suction drainage system (Redon) was used with two standard drains maintained for 24 hours post‐operatively.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Blood loss.
Hospital length of stay.
Hb & Hct levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Axford 1994

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

32 patients undergoing cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Washed shed mediastinal blood group): n=16; mean age (+/‐sd) = 60+/‐8 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=16; mean age (+/‐sd) = 61+/‐8 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: received the volume of mediastinal shed blood that had been collected up to the point of transfusion.
(2) Group 2: received 1 unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC).
NB: The decision to transfuse a patient post‐operatively was made by the clinician who was responsible for the patient's post‐operative care, and who was not involved in the study. The clinical criteria used to determine the need for transfusion consisted of the following: systolic BP less than 80mmHg; mean arterial pressure less than 50mmHg; central venous pressure (CVP) less than 5mmHg; pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) less than 5mmHg; cardiac index (CI) less than 2.0L/min/m2; evidence of inadequate end‐organ perfusion (ie: urine output less than 20ml/hr), or anaemia (Hct less than 25%). Any patient who bled more than 400ml in the first 4 hours post‐operatively and who met any of these criteria underwent transfusion.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Amount of autologous blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused autologous and/or allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Bleeding times.
Plasma protein variables.
Post transfusion febrile reactions.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Ayers 1995

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned on the basis of hospital number. The method of generating allocation sequences was not described.

Participants

232 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasties were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autovac Post‐operative Orthopaedic Autotransfusion Canister system group): n=103.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=129.
NB: Demographic data not reported.

Interventions

(1) Group 1 (Autovac Post‐operative Orthopaedic Autotransfusion Canister group): blood was collected for 4 hours post‐operatively. The canister was injected with 40mls of acid‐citrate‐dextrose anticoagulant (ACD‐A) before activation. The canister was connected to wall suction with use of an Autovac Autotranfusion Regulator that limited maximum collection pressure to 100mmHg. If at least 300mls of blood was collected within 4 hours, the unwashed blood was reinfused through a microaggregate filter; if less than 300mls of blood was collected, the blood was discarded. Any blood that had not been reinfused within 6 hours after the beginning of collection was discarded.
(2) Group 2: closed suction drainage system (Hemovac system) was used.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic and./or autologous blood.
Blood loss.
Hb levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.
All revision patients were exposed to cell salvage intra‐operatively.
85% of Group 1 patients predeposited blood pre‐operatively (PAD).
77% of Group 2 patients predeposited blood pre‐operatively (PAD).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Bouboulis 1994

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

75 consecutive patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomised into 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=42; mean age (+/‐sd) = 60+/‐7 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=33; mean age (+/‐sd) = 59+/‐8 years.

Interventions

(1) Group1 (Autotransfusion group): received autotransfusion of shed mediastinal blood using the cardiotomy reservoir, after the completion of the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). As soon as the chest was closed, the mediastinal tubes were attached to the inlet port of the cardiotomy reservoir, which allows the chest tube drainage to pass through a 20 micron filter. The filtered blood was collected in the bottom of the cardiotomy reservoir, ready for reinfusion. The vacuum port was attached to wall suction apparatus and negative pressure was instituted at 20cm H2O. The chest drains were milked every 30 minutes. The collected blood was reinfused using a standard infusion pump. The hourly volume of mediastinal drainage was measured and the infusion pump adjusted to deliver this amount of blood over the next hour. Reinfusion was continued until the drainage was less than or equal to 50ml per hour for two consecutive hours.
(2) Group 2: was treated with standard chest drainage.
NB: Allogeneic packed cells were transfused intra‐operatively or post‐operatively when the haematocrit fell below 30%.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Wound infection.
Re‐operation for bleeding.
Hospital length of stay.
Fever.
Mortality.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Clagett 1999

Methods

A stratified block design was used to pre‐operatively assign patients to intervention or control groups. Concealment of treatment allocation was by sealed envelopes.

Participants

100 patients undergoing aortic surgery were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=50; M/F= 41/9; mean age (+/‐sd) = 63+/‐11 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=50; M/F=43/7; mean age (+/‐sd) = 65+/‐9 years.

Interventions

(1) Group1: Intra‐operative autotransfusion with Cell Saver device.
(2) Group 2: Did not receive autotransfusion.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Estimated blood loss.
Hospital length of stay.
ICU length of stay.
Adverse events.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Dalrymple‐Hay 1999

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

112 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=56; M/F=36/20; mean age (+/‐sd) = 67.4+/‐9.0 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=56; M/F=41/15; mean age (+/‐sd) = 65.3+/‐10.5 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: Autotransfusion group, transfused with washed post‐operative drainage fluid with a Fresenius Continuous Autotransfusion System.
(2) Group 2: Control group received usual care management without autotransfusion.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Mortality.
Reoperation for bleeding.
Blood loss.
Coagulopathy.
Hb levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Davies 1987

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

50 patients undergoing aortic surgery were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=25; M/F=21/4; mean age (+/‐sd) = 68+/‐8 years.
(2) Group 2 (No intraoperative salvage group): n=25; M/F=22/3; mean age (+/‐sd) = 70+/‐8 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: blood was salvaged using the Sorenson autotransfusion system. Blood lost from the surgical site was suctioned into the Sorenson receptal device and this blood was retransfused into the patient at the time of surgery. Additional bood loss which was not able to be collected was replaced according to haematocrit levels, 3.5% polygeline being given if the haematocrit was above 30% and allogeneic blood if the haematocrit was below 30%. The collected blood was anticoagulated with an acid citrate dextrose solution and administered via a burette at a rate of 70ml for every 430ml of autologous blood collected. The scavenged blood was collected in a 1900ml sterile disposable Sorenson receptal ATS trauma liner contained within the rigid reusable receptal canister. When approximately 1 litre of autologous blood had been scavenged the liner was removed and this blood then administered to the patients after being filtered through a Pall 40 micron filter.
(2) Group 2: intraoperative blood loss was replaced with either 3.5% polygeline or allogeneic blood according to the measured Hct. If the Hct was above 30% then polygeline was used; if the Hct was below 30% then allogeneic blood was administered.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Mortality.
Reoperation for bleeding.
Haemodialysis.
Blood loss.
Coagulopathy.
Hb levels.
Organisms cultured from autologous vs allogeneic blood.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Dietrich 1989

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

100 patients undergoing myocardial revascularisation were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups:
(1) Group 1: n=25; mean age (+/‐sd) = 56.0+/‐6.6 years.
(2) Group 2: n=25; mean age (+/‐sd) = 54.1+/‐6.8 years.
(3) Group 3: n=25; mean age (+/‐sd) = 55.0+/‐9.4 years (4) Group 4: n=25; mean age (+/‐sd) = 55.7+/‐6.3 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients received unprocessed oxygenator blood after the termination of extracorporeal circulation (ECC).
(2) Group 2: the blood remaining in the oxygenator after ECC was processed to packed cells with a cell separator (Haemonetics Cell Saver) and retransfused until the end of the operation.
(3) Group 3: after the induction of anaesthesia and before the start of the operation, isovolumetric hemodilution (harvesting of 10ml/kg autologous blood) was performed under electrocardiographic and haemodynamic control. The blood loss was replaced with hydroxyethyl starch. After termination of ECC, the blood remaining in the oxygenator was processed by a cell separator. The preoperatively drawn blood and the packed cells were retransfused before the end of the operation.
(4) Group 4: patients in Group 4 were managed as in Group 3. In addition, the shed mediastinal blood was retransfused in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The cardiotomy reservoir of the heart lung machine was used to collect this blood. The drained blood was retransfused intermittently according to the circulatory state of the patient and when at least 250ml of blood had been collected in the reservoir. The last retransfusion was performed 6 hours postoperatively.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Mortality.
ICU length of stay.
Blood loss.
Reexploration for bleeding.
Operation time.
Haematological variables.
Hct levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Ekback 1995

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

45 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups;
(1) Group 1 (Control group): n=15.
(2) Group 2 (Autotransfusion ‐ Cell Saver group): n=15.
(3) Group 3 (Autologous predonation + Cell Saver group): n=15.
NB: Demographic data not reported.

Interventions

(1) Group 1 (Control group): blood loss was replaced with heterologous erythrocyte concentrate (SAGM‐ERC) and 3% dextran 60 in a ratio of 1:1. If necessary, additional SAGM‐ERC was transfused to correct erythrocyte volume fraction (EVF)>27%.
(2) Group 2 (Autotransfusion ‐ Cell Saver group): blood loss was replaced with 3% dextran and by autotransfusion of washed and haemconcentrated blood salvaged by intraoperative suction and from wound drains up to 4 hours postoperatively. As in Group 1, additional SAGM‐ERC was transfused to correct erythrocyte volume fraction (EVF)>27%.
(3) Group 3 (Autologous predonation + Cell Saver group): blood loss was replaced with 3% dextran and by autotransfusion of washed and haemconcentrated blood salvaged by intraoperative suction and from wound drains up to 4 hours postoperatively. Predonated autologous SAGM‐ERC was used instead of heterologous blood to maintain erythrocyte volume fraction (EVF)>27%. In 2‐3 sessions within 6 weeks prior to the operation, 2 to 3 units of SAGM‐ERC had been withdrawn. If necessary, heterologous SAGM‐ERC was used if transfusion of all predonated autologous blood failed to maintain EVF>27%.
Autotransfusion technique ‐ Haemonetic Cell Saver 4, Althin model AT 1000, or Shiley/Dideco STAT were used. Blood was retrieved from the operation site by suction through a double lumen catheter and was then anticoagulated with heparin (30,000 IU heparin in 1000ml of physiological saline). The blood was collected into a reservoir where a macrofilter removed debris. Thereafter, the blood was pumped into a spinning centrifuge bowl (125ml of blood) and washed with 1500ml of physiological saline. The erythrocytes were concentrated to an EVF of about 50‐60% and pumped into an infusion bag. The effluent containing platelets, free haemoglobin and anticoagulants was disposed.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Amount of autologous blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Swollen legs.
Minor stroke.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Elawad 1991

Methods

Concealment of treament allocation was by use of sealed envelopes. Method of generating allocation sequences was not described.

Participants

40 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (IAT group): n=20; M/F=9/11; mean age = 68 years (range 59‐89 years).
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=20; M/F=8/12; mean age = 74 years (range 48‐89 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1 (Intra‐operative autotransfusion ‐ IAT group): received autologous blood using the cell saver. Intraoperative blood salvage was performed using the Electromedic Autotrans AT1000 autotransfusion system. Blood was retrieved from the operative field with a double lumen suction catheter. The blood was immediately anticoagulated with sodium citrate. Larger debris was removed by a 240 micron filter in the cardiotomy reservoir. The filtered blood was pumped into a bowl centrifuge and washed with 1500ml saline. The supernatant was discarded. The erythrocyte concentrate was pumped into a reinfusion bag and then reinfused into the patient.
(2) Group 2: received allogeneic blood.
NB: Thromboprophylaxis was given to all patients using dextran 70, 6% in saline (Macrodex) 500ml during the operation, another 500ml during the remainder of the operation day, and 500ml on postoperative days 1,3 and 5. A transfusion was given if the haemoglobin was less than 8.5g/dL or if there were symptoms of anaemia.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic units transfused.
Number of patients receiving allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Blood loss.
Haematological variables.

Notes

Tranfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Eng 1990

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

40 patients (33 males and 7 females) undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery were randomised into 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autologous blood transfusion group): n=20.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=20.
Mean age for both groups = 55.75 years (range 33‐69 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: received postoperative autologous blood transfusion (AT) using the Shiley hardshell venous reservoir. At the end of the operation in theatre, the chest drains were connected to the Shiley hardshell venous reservoir using the Shiley drainage set. After the system was primed and specimens obtained for haematological, biochemical, and bacteriological analyses, transfusion of the shed blood was commenced, the rate depending on the amount of drainage, reinfusing the previous hours blood loss over the subsequent hour. At the end of 6 hours the AT was discontinued and further specimens were obtained.
(2) Group 2: patients were managed in the same manner without the use of autologous blood transfusion.
NB: Blood was used only when the haematocrit fell below 25%, haemoglobin below 9.0g/dL or the blood loss exceeded 500ml in the first 4 hours.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell save.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Hospital length of stay.
Mortality.
Blood loss.
Haematological variables.
Wound infection.
Sternal wound discharge.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Fragnito 1995

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described [Italian article].

Participants

82 patients undergoing myocardial revascularisation were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=41; M/F=37/4; mean age (+/‐sd) = 60.2+/‐9.3 years.
(2) Group 2 (No Autotransfusion group): n=41; M/F=33/8; mean age (+/‐sd) = 62.7+/‐8.9 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: Autotransfusion was used.
(2) Group 2: Autotransfusion was not used.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Blood loss.
Mortality.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Gannon 1991

Methods

A computer‐generated random number list was used to pre‐operatively assign patients to intervention or control groups. Method of allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

239 consecutive patients undergoing total knee replacement procedures were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Solcotrans system): n=124; M/F=59/65; mean age = 65 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=115; M/F=46/69; mean age = 69 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: the wounds of patients in the study group were drained into Solcotrans (Solco Basle) postoperative blood salvage cannisters. There was a 6 hour total time limit for collection and reinfusion of blood. Because 40ml of citrate ACD‐A was entered in each Solcotrans canister prior to use, a minimum of 320ml of blood and citrate volume was necessary before reinfusion to prevent citrate toxicity. If wound drainage was slow and an adequate volume had not been collected before the 6‐hour time limit, the canister and blood were discarded, and a standard collection canister was attached to the drainage tube for the duration. If wound drainage was rapid, the canister was allowed to fill completely (500ml volume). The blood was then infused at an appropraite rate as long as the 6‐hour pre‐canister limit was not exceeded. Another Solcotrans canister could then be attached, beginning a new 6‐hour time interval.
(2) Group 2: the wounds of patients in the control group were drained into standard 400ml suction cannisters.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Transfusion reactions.
Fat embolism.
Respiratory distress syndrome.
Sepsis.
Intravascular coagulopathy.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Healy 1994

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

128 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or spine fusion were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Orth‐Evac group): n=44; M/F=18/26; mean age = 67.9 years (range 41‐82 years).
(2) Group 2 (Solcotrans group: n=40); M/F=20/20; mean age = 66.3 years (range 54‐82 years).
(3) Group 3 (Control group): n=44; M/F=23/21; mean age = 62.5 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1 received autologous shed blood reinfusion collected from wound drainage by an Orth‐evac device.
(2) Group 2 received autologous shed blood reinfusion collected from wound drainage by a Solcotrans device.
(3) Group 3 received either autologous predonated blood or allogeneic banked blood.
NB: Patients randomised to the autologous shed blood groups (Group 1 and Group 2) were randomly assigned to one of two infusion filters (Pall 40 micron screen filter or Pall RC100 polyester filter) for the transfusion phase of the study. In patients who were not reinfused with postoperative shed blood, a standard wound drainage system (Hemovac) was used, and these patients received liquid‐preserved autologous predonated blood or allogeneic blood filtered with a standard 170 micron screen filter. With the Solcotrans drainage system, 40ml acid citrate detrose (ACD) was used. No anticoagulant was added with the Ortho‐evac drainage system.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of blood re‐transfused from cell saver.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Complications.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Heddle 1992

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

81 patients undergoing elective knee arthroplasty were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Solcotrans group): n=39; M/F=14/25; mean age (+/‐sd) = 69.3+/‐6.9 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=40; M/F=14/26; mean age (+/‐sd) = 71.0+/‐9.0 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients underwent drainage and autotransfusion transfusion using a Solcotrans system. The autologous blood collected into the drainage and transfusion device was transfused if specific transfusion guidelines were met. Patients were transfused the initial unit of Solcotrans blood if 350ml or more had been collected within 3 hours of the patients entry to the recovery room. The 3‐hour collection time provided for collection and transfusion of the blood within the maximum interval of 6 hours. After successful collection and transfusion of the first autologous blood unit, a second autologous blood collection device was attached. For this and subsequent collections, autologous blood was transfused if 150ml or more was collected within 3 hours. When the rate of drainage was less than 250ml of blood within a 3 hour period, a subsequent drainage and transfusion device was not attached. The first Solcotrans device attached to the drain contained 40ml of ACD‐A.
(2) Group 2: the drained blood was collected by a Davol suction unit and discarded. The Davol unit was the current standard practice in the two study centres. Patients assigned to the Davol suction group received 1 unit of allogeneic red cells if more than 500ml of blood drained from the surgical site within a 2 hour period. Subsequently, whenever drainage exceeded 500ml within a 2 hour period, 1 unit of allogeneic blood was transfused.
Nb: On postoperative Days 2 through 5, the criteria for allogeneic red cell transfusions were identical for both groups. Patients were given one unit of red cell concentrate if their haemoglobin was within the range of 80 to 89g/L, two units when the value was from 70 to 79g/L, three units when the value was from 60 to 69g/L, and four units if the value was from 50 to 59g/L.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Transfusion reactions.
Blood loss.
Coagulation variables.
Venogram results.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Kelley 1993

Methods

Patients were randomised on an alternating basis to either intervention or control. Method of randomisation was not described.

Participants

36 patients undergoing aortobifemoral or aortobi‐iliac bypass for occlusive disease were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Cell Saver Autotransfusion Device ‐ Haemonetics): n=18.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=18.
NB: Demographic data not reported.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: Cell Saver Autotransfusion Device (Haemonetics) was monitored and operated by a technician‐member of the perfusion team.
(2) Group 2: No Cell‐Saver system was used.
NB: After operation allogeneic red cell transfusions were not given to patients who were haemodynamically stable, and had haemoglobin values greater than 8.0g/dL.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Complications.
Hospital length of stay.
Blood loss.
Hb levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Koopman 1993a

Methods

Each patient was allocated on an alternating basis to one of two groups. The method of randomisation was not described.

Participants

40 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Cell Saver III‐plus ‐ Haemonetics group): n=20; M/F=14/3; mean age (+/‐sd) = 64+/‐7 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=20; M/F=17/3; mean age (+/‐sd) = 62+/‐10 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: Cell‐Saver group all received peri‐operative autotransfusion of blood processed by means of the Cell‐Saver III‐plus with a 225ml bowl. Additionally, allogeneic packed cells were transfused to maintain an Hct at 30%.
(2) Group 2: Control group received allogeneic packed cells only to maintain a Hct at 30%. No cell saver was used.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell save.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Blood loss.
Hb & Hct levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Koopman 1993b

Methods

Each patient was allocated on an alternating basis to one of two groups. The method of randomisation was not described.

Participants

60 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty or dorsal lumbo‐sacral fusion surgery were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Haemonetic Haemolite‐2 Cell Saver group): n=30; M/F=6/23; mean age (+/‐sd) = 51+/‐18 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=30; M/F=7/23; mean age (+/‐sd) = 53+/‐18 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: all patients received peri‐operative autotransfusion by means of the Haemonetics Haemolite‐2 with a 200ml bowl. Allogeneic packed cells were transfused to maintain the patients Hct at 30%. The blood shed intra‐operaively and during the first six post‐operative hours was collected and heparinised. The blood was processed in the Haemolite‐2 by personnel of the Intensive Care Unit. The erythrocyte suspension thus produced was transfused to the patient within 4 hours after collection through a 40 micron blood filter. Blood cultures were taken before retransfusion to the patient.
(2) Group 2: received only allogeneic transfusions to maintain a Hct at 30%.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Blood loss.
Hb & Hct levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Laub 1993

Methods

Patients were randomised by coded instruction packets which specified the processing and administration of the patient's salvaged intra‐operative blood. Sealed instruction packets were randomised using a shuffle deck procedure, serially numbered, and assigned sequentially to patients in order of enrollment. The sealed instruction packets were sent with the patients to the operating room.

Participants

50 patients undergoing primary coronary revascularisation were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=19; M/F=15/4; mean age (+/‐sd) = 65.0+/‐10.5 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=19; M/F=14/5; mean age (+/‐sd) = 64.4+/‐9.2 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: blood was scavenged from the surgical field in all cases using an autologous blood scavenging system (Cell Saver 4, Haemonetics). The shed blood collected from the operative field and the pump blood were washed and then reinfused.
(2) Group 2: blood was scavenged from the surgical field in all cases using an autologous blood scavenging system (Cell Saver 4, Haemonetics). The shed blood collected from the operative field was discarded. Only the pump blood was reinfused.
NB: Packed red blood cell transfusions were given if the patients haemoglobin was less than 7.0g/dL or if the patient was haemodynamically unstable due to volume loss.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Amount of any blood product transfused.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Lepore 1989

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

135 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=67; M/F=52/15; mean age (+/‐sd) = 60+/‐12 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=68; M/F=51/17; mean age (+/‐sd) = 61+/‐10 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: after use in extracorporeal circulation, the cardiotomy reservoir (Dideco 742) was reconfigured to serve as a receptacle for post‐operative mediastinal drainage. One of the inlet ports was connected to the tubes draining the mediastinum. In this way the drainage from the chest passed through the 20 micron filter of the cardiotomy reservoir. The cardiotomy outlet tubing was replaced with an adapter connecting with standard intravenous tubing. A standard infusion pump was used to reinfuse the collected blood.The filtered blood collecting in the reservoir was reinfused at hourly intervals. No blood was reinfused after the 6th post‐operative hour. Thereafter the reservoir served only as a receptable for shed mediastinal blood. Reservoir blood was sampled at 6 hours for bacteriologic study.
(2) Group 2: received no reinfused blood, but in other respects was managed the same as the autotransfusion group.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Mortality.
Blood loss.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Lorentz 1991

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not clear [German article].

Participants

64 patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty were randomly divided into 1 of 4 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Preoperative autologous donation group): n=16.
(2) Group 2 (Preoperative haemodilution group): n=16.
(3) Group 3 (Intraoperative + Postoperative autotransfusion group): n=16.
(4) Group 4 (Control group): n=15.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: preoperative autologous donations were stored in CPDA‐1 buffer. Three units of 450ml were requested. A predonation haemoglobin (Hb) concentration of 11g/dL was required. Surgery was carried out in the 5th week after the first donation.
(2) Group 2: preoperative haemodilution to Hb 9.0g/dL was carried out after the induction of anaesthesia and initial circulatory stabilisation.
(3) Group 3: a cell separator was used for intraoperative and post‐operative autotransfusion. Post‐operative autotransfusion of drainage blood was continued until 6 hours after the beginning of the operation. Autologous blood collected with the cell separator was retransfused at the end of the operation and after the autotransfusion period irrespective of the actual Hb concentration.
(4) Control group: received standard care.
NB: Polygeline was used for volume resuscitation. If the Hb concentration fell below 9.0g/dL in the operating room and the intensive care unit (ICU) or below 10.0g/dL in the general ward, autologous or allogeneic packed red cells were transfused.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Blood loss.

Notes

Transfusion protocol use.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Mah 1995

Methods

Patients were randomised using a computer‐generated randomisation table. Method of allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

99 patients undergoing elective primary total knee replacement surgery were randomly allocated to one of two groups:
(1) Group 1 (Cell‐Saver Electromedics BT‐795 group): n=44.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=55.
NB: Demographic data not reported.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: blood salvage was performed using a semi‐automated autotransfuser (Electromedics BT‐795) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Intra‐operative blood salvage was performed by a nurse in conjunction with an anaesthetist. Post‐operative blood salvage was a continuation of the intra‐operative salvage for a duration not exceeding 6 hours after the tourniquet was released. On completion of salvage, the wound drains were connected to two vacuum‐charged Redivac bottles and the drains were removed at 48 hours post operation. The average volume of blood salvaged in each patient was calculated after adjusting the haematocrit to 40%. Transfusions were used intra/post‐operatively to maintain a safe blood volume and the haemoglobin level around 100g/L.
(2) Group 2: no cell saver system was used.
NB: In total knee replacement patients, standard surgical technique using a midline incision and medial parapatellar approach under tourniquet control was followed, and lateral release of the quadriceps expansion was not routinely performed.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Blood loss.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Majowski 1991

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

40 patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Solcotrans groups): n=20; M/F=6/14; mean age = 71.3 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=20; M/F=6/14; mean age = 70.3 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: the two deep intra‐articular drains were connected to a Solcotrans reservoir and a suction pressure of 80mmHg applied for an initial period of 10 minutes, after which the wound was allowed to drain by gravity alone. Two Solcotrans reservoirs were attached sequentially to each patient regardless of the volume drained. Blood was reinfused if a sufficient volume had been collected. Drains were removed at 48 hours.
(2) Group 2: all drains were attached to Redivac bottles.
NB: Allogeneic blood was given to patients if the haemoglobin fell below 9.5g/dL or if indicated haemodynamically.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Complications.
Deep vein thrombosis.
Wound complications.
Haematological variables.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Martin 2000

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

198 patients undergoing coronary arery bypass grafting (CABG) or valvular surgery were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=98; M/F= 75/23; mean age (+/‐sd) = 62+/‐2 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=100; M/F=70/30; mean age (+/‐sd) = 66+/‐2 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: were treated with an autotransfusion system (Atrium Medical Corporation) consisting of 28F thoracic tubes connected to a 3 chamber system. All collected blood is filtered through a filter and autotransfused until no drainage was present or for a maximum period of 12 hours. Transfusion began 1 hour after the patient arrived in ICU.
(2) Group 2: post‐operative mediastinal drainage was achieved by a 24F double‐lumen soft pump drain under high pressure wall suction, from which the collected blood was discarded.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Blood loss.
Adverse events.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Mauerhan 1993

Methods

Randomisation was performed using a random numbers table. Allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

111 patients undergoing elective primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (CBC‐Consta Vac reinfusion system): n=57.
(2) Group 2 (Consta Vac collection unit): n=54.
Mean age of TKA patients was 68 years (range 39‐88 years). Mean age of THA patients was 62 years (range 27‐85 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: were treated with a blood collection system, CBC Consta Vac, a battery‐operated suction unit set at 62mmHg, with a 800ml collection canister. The CBC Consta Vac system has an umbrella valve that ensures that the top 100ml of fluid containing serum fat, and bone debris does not leave the reservoir. Post‐operative drainage was collected, and the unwashed red blood cells were reinfused within a 6‐hour period. The blood was reinfused through a 20um macroaggregate filter.
(2) Group 2: were treated with a standard post‐operative collection system, the Consta Vac, a battery‐operated suction unit set at 62mmHg, with a 400ml collection canister.
NB: All patients were encouraged to donate two units of autologous blood prior to both THA and TKA. Intra‐operative blood transfusion was left to the discretion of the operating surgeon.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic or autologous blood Post‐operative drainage.
Hb levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

McGill 2002

Methods

Patient allocations were generated from random number tables by an independent observer and concealed in sealed opaque envelopes.

Participants

256 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Intra‐operative cell salvage group): n=84; M/F=75/9; mean (+/‐sd) age = 63.8+/‐7.8 years.
(2) group 2 (Combined treatment group): n=84; M/F=74/10; mean (+/‐sd) age = 63.1+/‐8.2 years.
(3) Group 3 (Control group): n=84; M/F=74/10; mean (+/‐sd) age = 63.4+/‐9.1 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: during surgery blood from the operation site was collected in a storage system. At the termination of cardiopulmonary bypass, blood remaining in the bypass circuit was added to the storage system. This blood was then centrifuged using a cell salvage system (Dideco Compact cell saver) leaving a concentrated solution of red blood cells with a haematocrit of 50‐60%. This autologous blood was then re‐transfused to the patient during the intra‐operative period.
(2) Group 2: were treated with cell salvage and acute normovolaemic haemodilution (ANH). After induction of anaesthesia 10ml/kg of blood was removed from a central venous line while being replaced at the same time with an equivalent volume of modified gelatin (Gelofusine). The Harvest Blood Stream Recovery System, an autologous recovery system, was used to remove blood. The recovered blood was stored at room temperature.
(3) Group 3: were treated without the use of cell salvage or acute normovolaemic haemodilution (ANH).
NB: Allogeneic red blood cells were transfused in all groups when the haemoglobin level fell below 9.0g/dL.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Number of patients receiving any blood product.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Blood loss.
Re‐operation for bleeding.
Hospital length of stay.
Infection.
Stroke.
Renal failure.
Myocardial infarction.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Menges 1992

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described [German article].

Participants

42 patients undergoing total hip surgery and predonor plasmapheresis (Abbott Autotrans) were randomised into 1 of 3 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Control group): n=12; mean age (+/‐sd) = 66.7+/‐12.7 years.
(2) Group 2 (Autotransfusion group): n=14; mean age (+/‐sd) = 55.9+/‐18.2 years.
(3) Group 3 (Autotransfusion + FFP group): n=16; mean age (+/‐sd) = 70.6+/‐7.0 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: for the substitution of blood loss, patients received, in addition to crystalloids and colloids, only allogeneic red blood cells (erythrocyte concentrate). Cell salvage was not used.
(2) Group 2: for the substitution of blood loss, patients received, in addition to crystalloids and colloids, only autologous packed red blood cells (erythrocyte concentrate) (collected via Autotrans BT 795 P, Dideco, intra‐operatively) post‐operatively.
(3) Group 3: received additionally, intra‐operative and post‐operative autologous fresh frozen plasma (FFP).
NB: Study investigated the influence of two different methods of autotransfusion on the intravascular haemostatic system.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Blood loss.
Hb & Hct levels.
Clotting status (PT/TT/PTT/ATIII).
Immunological methods.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Naumenko 2003

Methods

Method of randomisation was not reported and allocation concealment was unclear. Baseline comparability was unclear. However the study reported that, "no significant difference between groups were detected at any stage of the study." Participants were not blind to treatment allocation and blinding of the outcome assessor was unclear [Russian article].

Participants

66 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Control group): n=33.
(2) Group 2 (Autotransfusion): n=33.
NB: Demographic data not reported.
Inclusion criteria: patients with an uneventful postoperative period (discharge of less than 800ml through draining tubes during first 8 hours post operation).

Interventions

Group 1: no retransfusion of drainage discharge.
Group 2: drainage discharge collected for 8 hours post‐operatively and reinfused using a BRAT‐2 Cell Saver. Drainage discharge collected for 8 hours post‐operatively and erythrocytes reinfused post‐operatively after washing. The volume of autologous blood collected was up to 800mls.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.
Russian study.
English abstract only.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

D ‐ Not used

Newman 1997

Methods

Randomisation was by random‐number tables. Method of allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

70 consecutive patients undergoing unilateral total knee replacement with a cruciate‐sparing Kinemax Plus prosthesis were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autologous blood group ‐ Dideco 797): n=35.
(2) Group 2 (Standard Haemovac system group): n=35.
Mean age of patients enrolled in study was 72 years. NB: Demographic data not reported.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: deep and superficial drains were inserted before skin closure and connected to the Dideco 797 reinfusion system which maintains a constant suction of ‐25mmHg. The drainage collected was mixed with citrate in a ratio of 12:1, filtered during collection and again during reinfusion through a 40um filter. No washing took place. Drainage was collected for 6 hours or until 500 ml had accumulated, at which point reinfusion of the unwashed salvaged blood took place.
(2) Group 2: deep and superficial drains were inserted before skin closure and connected to a standard Haemovac system which maintains a constant suction of ‐25mmHg. Autotransfusion was not available to this group.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from cell saver.
Amount of allogenic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Hospital length of stay.
Urinary tract infections.
Chest infections.
Antibiotic usage.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Page 1989

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

100 consecutive patients undergoing elective coronary artery or valvular operations were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Control group): n=51; M/F=38/14; mean age (+/‐sd) = 56.9+/‐9.4 years.
(2) Group 2 (Cell salvage group): n=48; M/F=38/11; mean age (+/‐sd) = 58.3+/‐8.9 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1 ‐ a Polystan soft‐shell cardiotomy reservoir (Polystan A/S Walgerholm 8) was used during bypass. Blood was drained into conventional drainage bottles with an applied suction of 25cmH2O.
(2) Group 2 ‐ a Bentley Catr hard‐shell cardiotomy reservoir (Bentley‐Edwards CVS Division) was used during bypass. Both drains were connected to the top of the cardiotomy reservoir, previously used during bypass, and suction of 50cmH2O was applied. Patients had their shed mediastinal blood reinfused for up to 18 hours post‐operatively.
Nb: After bypass, any residual blood left in the perfusion circuit was saved and infused through a peripheral vein. Both groups of patients had pericardial and mediastinal drains (Axiom). A variety of both membrane and bubble oxygenators were used in both groups. Allogeneic blood or hetastarch was infused to maintain cardiovascular stability and a haematocrit of 30%.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Re‐exploration for bleeding.
Blood borne infection.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Parrot 1991

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

66 patients undergoing aortocoronary bypass surgery were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups:
(1) Group 1: n=22; mean age = 61 years.
(2) Group 2: n=22; mean age = 60 years.
(3) Group 3: n=22; mean age = 55 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients received allogeneic blood transfusions if their haematocrit fell below 20% during bypass, 28% at the end of the procedure, 30% within 24 hours, or if their haemoglobin level was less than 10g/dL while on the cardiac surgery ward (8 to 10 days).
(2) Group 2: received intra‐operative autologous blood. Intra‐operative autologous blood consisted of the blood contents of the oxygenator after concentration but without any washing, by the Haemonetics Cell Saver III autologous transfusion system.
(3) Group 3: received intra‐operative and post‐operative autologous blood. Post‐operative autologous blood consisted of the mediastinal blood shed during the first 6 hours, into a heparinised drainage system (PLEUR‐EVACA 4005) which was concentrated and washed by a Haemonetics Haemolite system.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Mortality.
Blood loss.
Hct levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Riou 1994

Methods

A random number table was used to assign patients in equal numbers to the two groups. Method of allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

50 patients undergoing elective spinal surgery were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Solcotrans group): n=25; M/F=7/18; mean age (+/‐sd) = 52+/‐16 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=25; M/F=12/13; mean age (+/‐sd) = 52+/‐17 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: post‐operatively drained blood was collected into a Solcotrans Orthopedic Plus system. The salvaged blood was considered for re‐infusion.
(2) Group 2: post‐operatively drained blood was collected into a Solcotrans Orthopedic Plus system but the salvaged blood was not considered for re‐infusion.
NB: No anticoagulation was added to the Solcotrans system. The duration of drainage was limited to the first 5‐hours of the post‐operative period. At the end of this period, patients from the Solcotrans group whose drained blood volume was greater than 200ml had this blood re‐infused. In the control group the salvaged blood was not re‐infused. Blood transfusion (allogeneic and/or autologous) was decided if haematocrit was below 25% during the peri‐operative period.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Rollo 1995

Methods

Patients were randomised by month of birth into four groups.

Participants

153 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty were randomised to 1 of 4 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Haemonetics group): n=35; M/F=19/16; mean age = 68 years (range 50‐86 years)
(2) Group 2 (Solcotrans drainage infusion system group): n=40; M/F=24/16; mean age = 68 years (range 28‐87)
(3) Group 3 (Closed system Hemovac drain group): n=38; M/F=20/20; mean age = 64 years (range 39‐85 years)
(4) Group 4 (No drain group): n=38; M/F=20/18; mean age = 61 years (range 38‐86).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: the intra‐operative salvage of red blood cells was performed with the Haemonetics Cell‐Saver. A paediatric bowl was used for the processing of salvaged, shed blood. This collection was continued after surgery through two medium drains while the patient remained in the recovery room. A closed‐suction standard Hemovac drain was placed when salvage was discontinued.
(2) Group 2: were treated with a Solcotrans drainage infusion system at the completion of surgery. This system consists of a 500ml collection canister with 260 micron pre‐transfusion filter for collection and a 40 micron filter for transfusion. A minimum of 300 ml of blood had to be collected within a 4 hour period. Total collection / infusion time could not exceed 6 hours. A maximum of 2 units could be reinfused. After the completion of the transfusions, the Solcotrans unit was discarded and replaced with a closed‐suction drain.
(3) Group 3: were treated with a standard 400ml Hemovac closed‐suction drain.
(4) Group 4: did not receive drains at the completion of surgery.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic and/or autologous blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Hb & Hct levels.
Thigh circumference measures.
Wound drainage.

Notes

Patients were able to donate at least 2 units of autologous blood pre‐operatively were included in the study.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Rollo 1995a

Methods

Patients were randomised by month of birth into four groups.

Participants

153 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty were randomised to 1 of 4 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Haemonetics group): n=35; M/F=19/16; mean age = 68 years (range 50‐86 years)
(2) Group 2 (Solcotrans drainage infusion system group): n=40; M/F=24/16; mean age = 68 years (range 28‐87)
(3) Group 3 (Closed system Hemovac drain group): n=38; M/F=20/20; mean age = 64 years (range 39‐85 years)
(4) Group 4 (No drain group): n=38; M/F=20/18; mean age = 61 years (range 38‐86).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: the intra‐operative salvage of red blood cells was performed with the Haemonetics Cell‐Saver. A paediatric bowl was used for the processing of salvaged, shed blood. This collection was continued after surgery through two medium drains while the patient remained in the recovery room. A closed‐suction standard Hemovac drain was placed when salvage was discontinued.
(2) Group 2: were treated with a Solcotrans drainage infusion system at the completion of surgery. This system consists of a 500ml collection canister with 260 micron pre‐transfusion filter for collection and a 40 micron filter for transfusion. A minimum of 300 ml of blood had to be collected within a 4 hour period. Total collection / infusion time could not exceed 6 hours. A maximum of 2 units could be reinfused. After the completion of the transfusions, the Solcotrans unit was discarded and replaced with a closed‐suction drain.
(3) Group 3: were treated with a standard 400ml Hemovac closed‐suction drain.
(4) Group 4: did not receive drains at the completion of surgery.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic and/or autologous blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Hb & Hct levels.
Thigh circumference measures.
Wound drainage.

Notes

Patients able to donate at least 2 units of autologous blood were included in the study.
NB: Data from Rollo 1995 has been used to formulate Rollo 1995/a which represents a comparison of Haemonetics Cell‐Saver group vs No drainage group (Control).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Rollo 1995b

Methods

Patients were randomised by month of birth into four groups.

Participants

153 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty were randomised to 1 of 4 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Haemonetics group): n=35; M/F=19/16; mean age = 68 years (range 50‐86 years).
(2) Group 2 (Solcotrans drainage infusion system group): n=40; M/F=24/16; mean age = 68 years (range 28‐87).
(3) Group 3 (Closed system Hemovac drain group): n=38; M/F=20/20; mean age = 64 years (range 39‐85 years).
(4) Group 4 (No drain group): n=38; M/F=20/18; mean age = 61 years (range 38‐86).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: the intra‐operative salvage of red blood cells was performed with the Haemonetics Cell‐Saver. A paediatric bowl was used for the processing of salvaged, shed blood. This collection was continued after surgery through two medium drains while the patient remained in the recovery room. A closed‐suction standard Hemovac drain was placed when salvage was discontinued.
(2) Group 2: patients were treated with a Solcotrans drainage infusion system at the completion of surgery. This system consists of a 500ml collection canister with 260 micron pre‐transfusion filter for collection and a 40 micron filter for transfusion. A minimum of 300 ml of blood had to be collected within a 4 hour period. Total collection / infusion time could not exceed 6 hours. A maximum of 2 units could be reinfused. After the completion of the transfusions, the Solcotrans unit was discarded and replaced with a closed‐suction drain.
(3) Group 3: patients were treated with a standard 400ml Hemovac closed‐suction drain.
(4) Group 4: patients did not receive drains at the completion of surgery.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic and/or autologous blood transfused.
Number of patients receiving allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Hb & Hct levels.
Thigh circumference measures.
Wound drainage.

Notes

Patients able to donate at least 2 units of autologous blood were included in the study.
NB: Data from Rollo 1995 has been used to formulate Rollo 1995/b which represents a comparison of the Solcotrans group vs No drainage group (Control).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Rosencher 1994

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described. [French article]

Participants

30 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were randomised to 1 of 3 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Ortho‐evac group): n=10; mean age (+/‐sd) = 68+/‐10 years.
(2) Group 2 (Solcotrans group): n=10; mean age (+/‐sd) = 70+/‐10 years.
(3) Group 3 (Control group): n=10; mean age (+/‐sd) = 68+/‐15 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: an Ortho‐evac system (not containing an anticoagulant) was connected to the deep suction drains in the operating room, after skin closure and before tourniquet removal. The salvaged blood was reinfused in the subsequent six hours via a 40 micron filter. The volume of collected blood was measured and allogeneic blood was added as required, to maintain a haematocrit of 30%. A blood sample was obtained before surgery, before reinfusion, two hours later, one day later, and from the collecting device before reinfusion. The Ortho‐evac system had a 1000ml capacity.
(2) Group 2: a Solcotrans system (not containing an anticoagulant) was connected to the deep suction drains in the operating room, after skin closure and before tourniquet removal. The salvaged blood was reinfused in the subsequent six hours via a 40 micron filter. The volume of collected blood was measured and allogeneic blood was added as required, to maintain a haematocrit of 30%. A blood sample was obtained before surgery, before reinfusion, two hours later, one day later, and from the collecting device before reinfusion. The Solcotrans system had a 500ml capacity.
(3) Group 3: cell salvage was not performed.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Sait 1999

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

120 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=60.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=60.
NB: Demographic data not reported.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: autotransfusion was used. Methods used to perform cell salvage were not described.
(2) Group 2: cell salvage not performed.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Schaff 1978a

Methods

Patients were randomised by odd or even history numbers to either intervention or control groups.

Participants

114 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=63; M/F=41/22; mean age (+/‐sd) = 53.6+/‐10.3 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=51; M/F=32/19; mean age (+/‐sd) = 53.4+/‐10.0 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients were treated with a Sorenson autotransfusion system (ATS) for the collection of shed mediastinal blood. Blood collected in the ATS bags was considered suitable for autotransfusion only if 400mls or more was collected within 4 hours. If the rate of mediastinal bleeding was slow and 4 hours passed without 400ml volume being collected, this blood was not reinfused. If Hct values were below 35% and left ventricular filling was judged to be adequate, whole blood and/or packed red blood cells were infused to restore intravascular volume. With higher haematocrit and with low left ventricular filling pressures, patients received an infusion of colloid solution or crystalloid solution (Ringer's lactate). Shed mediastinal blood was given in preference to stored bank blood when volume replacement was necessary.
(2) Group 2: received only transfusions of stored bank blood. Cell salvage was not performed.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Total blood and blood component replacement.
Mediastinal blood loss.
Haematological variables.
Complications.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Schmidt 1996

Methods

Method of randomisation was not described. Allocation concealment was by means of sealed envelopes.

Participants

120 adult patients undergoing primary elective coronary artery bypass grafting were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=53; M/F=46/7; mean age (+/‐sd) = 58.5+/‐7.4 years (range 38‐69 years).
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=56; M/F=51/5; mean age (+/‐sd) = 57.5+/‐8.9 years (range 31‐72 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: at the end of the operation, the mediastinal and pleural tubes were attached to the inlet port of the Bard cardiotomy / autotransfusion reservoir. Shed mediastinal blood from the cardiotomy reservoir was transfused every hour for the first 18 postoperative hours if more than 20ml of blood had accumulated. Prior to transfusion the shed mediastinal blood was filtered through a 40micron filter in the cardiotomy reservoir.
(2) Group 2: the cardiotomy reservoir was used for mediastinal drainage only.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Sternal infections.
Myocardial infarctions.
Sepsis.
Mortality.
Blood loss.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Schonberger 1993

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

40 patients undergoing elective primary unilateral internal mammary (IMA) artery bypass grafting were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=20; M/F=15/5; mean age (+/‐sd) = 64+/‐10.7 years.
(2) Group 2 ‐ No autotransfusion group (Control group): n=20; M/F=15/5; mean age (+/‐sd) = 63+/‐6.3 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients underwent internal mammary artery (IMA) surgery with pre‐bypass removal of autologous blood, reinfusion of the remaining volume in the extracorporeal circuit (ECC) after aortic decannulation, administration of 200ml aprotinin containing 280mg of aprotinin (2 million kallikrein inactivator units) added to the pump prime, acceptance of normovolemic anaemia (Hct greater than or equal to 25%) and autotransfusion of the shed blood post‐operatively.
(2) Group 2: patients underwent IMA surgery under the same conditions as Group 1 with the exclusion of autotransfusion (AT).
NB: Allogeneic packed red cells were transfused when the post‐operative Hct fell below 25%.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Re‐exploration for bleeding.
Blood loss.
Perioperative infarction.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Shenolikar 1997

Methods

Patients were allocated to groups according to a computer generated randomisation schedule. Method of allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

100 consecutive patients undergoing total knee replacement were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=50; M/F=21/29; mean age males = 70.4 years (range 47‐78 years); mean age females = 69.3 years (range 52‐81 years).
(2) Group 2 (Allogeneic blood group): n=50; M/F=24/26; mean age males = 67.9 years (range 51‐82 years); mean age females = 70.8 years (range 46‐88).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: a Haemonetics cell saver 3 machine was used for post‐operative cell salvage. Blood was collected via the wound drains following the release of the tourniquet. The collected blood was anticoagulated with heparinised saline. The machine aspirate the wound drainage into the centrifuge bowl via roller pumps. The blood underwent accelerated sedimentation, being spun at 5600 revs/per/minute. The supernatant was discarded and the resulting red cells washed and resuspended in normal saline. The machines produced a product with a haematocrit of over 55% and a volume of 250 ml. When the post‐operative haemoglobin fell below 9.0g/dL they were transfused with allogeneic transfusion.
(2) Group 2: patients were given allogeneic blood in the post‐operative period when the haemoglobin fell below 9.0g/dL.
NB: Routine procedure of crossmatching two units of packed cells was performed for all patients in the study.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Hospital length of stay.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Shirvani 1991

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

40 patient undergoing first time coronary artery bypass graft sugery were randomly divided into 1 of 2 groups. The 2 groups were further subdivided according to whether the patients received aspirin preoperatively or not:
(1) Group 1 (Control group + aspirin): n=12.
(2) Group 2 (Control group ‐ no aspirin): n=9.
(3) Group 3 (Autotransfusion group + aspirin): n=10.
(4) Group 4 (Autotransfusion group ‐ no aspirin): n=11.
Nb: Demographic data not reported.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients were transfused post‐operatively with allogeneic blood. Patients from this group received 75mg of aspirin daily pre‐operatively.
(2) Group 2: patients were transfused post‐operatively with allogeneic blood. Patients from this group did not receive 75mg of aspirin daily pre‐operatively.
(3) Group 3: patients were autotransfused using an IMED 960 Volumetric Infusion Pump but donor blood was also available if needed. Patients from this group received 75mg of aspirin daily pre‐operatively.
(4) Group 4: patients were autotransfused using an IMED 960 Volumetric Infusion Pump but donor blood was also available if needed. Patients from this group did not receive 75mg of aspirin daily pre‐operatively.
NB: The indication for transfusion was the maintenance of a haematocrit (Hct) level of 30 to 35%.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Re‐operation for bleeding.
Blood loss.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Simpson 1994

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

24 patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Solcotrans system): n=12; M/F=5/7; mean age = 64.7 years (range 53‐76 years).
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=12; M/F=5/7; mean age = 59.6 years (range 41‐76 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: a Solcotrans drain was inserted in the operating room and connected to the collection unit and placed under continuous suction (‐20cmH2O) once wound closure was complete. Collection continued for 6‐hours or until the unit was full. At that time, the amount of drainage was noted. If greater than 350ml, the drainage was reinfused and a new Solcotrans unit connected. ACD‐A (citrate‐based anticoagulant) was used in each unit (40mls). If the drainage was greater than 150ml but less than 350ml, the drainage was reinfused and a standard, spring loaded, closed intermittent suction canister was connected. If the drainage was less than 150ml, the drainage was not reinfused and collection continued, either in the Solcotrans canister or a closed suction drain.
(2) Group 2: had drains inserted in the operating room that was connected to a standard, closed system, spring loaded, intermittent suction device.
NB: Drains for both patient groups were discontinued once drainage was less than 40ml per 8‐hour shift.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Average collection times.
Blood loss.
Hb & Hct levels.
Coagulation variables.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Slagis 1991

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

109 patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Hemolite cell saver group): n=51.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=51.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: a Hemolite cell saver was used. The wound drainage tubes were connected in the operating room to a sterile reservoir which contained 200ml of a heparin saline solution.The reservoir was connected to wall suction (120mmHg) in the operating suite. Collection was continued in the post‐anaesthetic care unit and the surgical ward. At the end of the 4 hour period the collected wound drainage was processed. Under sterile conditions the blood was washed with 2 litres of saline and processed in the Hemolite cell washer to remove heparin, cellular debris, platelets and clotting factors. After processing, the wound drainage consisted of concentrated red blood cells suspended in saline. This product was transfused back to the patient. After wound drainage collection was completed, the drains were attached to standard Hemovac suction and output was monitored at 8 hour intervals until the drains were disconnected at 48 hours.
(2) Group 2: a Hemovac standard drainage system was used. At the termination of the operative procedure the control group underwent Hemovac wound drainage only. Autotransfusion was not performed.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Coagulopathy.
Blood loss.
Transfusion reactions.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.
Patients who were transfused only one unit of blood received only pre‐banked autologous blood.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Spark 1997

Methods

Method of randomisation not described. Allocation concealment was by sealed envelopes.

Participants

50 patients undergoing elective infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autologous group): n=23; M/F=19/4; median age = 71 years (interquartile range 54‐78 years).
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=27; M/F=20/7; median age = 68 years (interquartile range 54‐82 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients received autologous blood via intra‐operative autotransfusion (IAT). A COBE Baylor rapid autologous transfusion system was employed for intraoperative cell salvage. Blood was retrieved from the operative site by suctioning into a double lumen catheter at less than 150mmHg, to minimise haemolysis. Blood was anticoagulated with heparin (30,000 Units / 1litre 0.9% saline). The salvaged blood was then collected in a reservoir where a macrofilter of 150 microns removed larger particles of debris. When 500 ml of blood was collected, it was pumped to a spinning centrifuge bowl. The red cells were washed with 0.9% saline, and concentrated to a Hct above 50%. The effluent containing plasma fractions, platelets, leukocytes, free haemoglobin, anticoagulant and saline was discarded. The washed red cells, suspended in saline were pumped from the centrifuge to the patient through a microfilter of either 20 or 40 microns.
(2) Group 2: patients were transfused allogeneic blood if the Hct fell below 25%. Cell salvage was not performed.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients tranfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Hospital length of stay.
Blood loss.
Mortality.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

High risk

C ‐ Inadequate

Tempe 1996

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

150 consecutive patients undergoing elective valve surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Cell salvage + ANH group): n=50; M/F=35, females n=15; mean age (+/‐SD) 29.1+/‐11.8 years.
(2) Group 2 (ANH group): n=50; males n=25, females n=25; mean age (+/‐SD) 28.1+/‐9.2 years.
(3) Group 3 (Control group): n=50; males n=15, females n=35; mean age (+/‐SD) 26.1+/‐9.3 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: received autologous fresh blood donated before bypass, and both cell saver and membrane oxygenator were used. Autologous blood was removed by a central venous catheter after induction of anaesthesia and collected in citrate phosphate preservative at room temperature for subsequent transfusion. Blood volume was maintained with a simultaneous infusion of Ringer's lactate solution. A Dideco, Shiley cell saver system was used to collect all blood at the operation site. This system heparinises, washes, and centrifuges the blood to produce a red cell concentrate for transfusion. At the conclusion of CPB, all the blood remaining in the oxygenator was also processed by the cell saver in preparation for subsequent transfusion. A "Maxima" membrane oxygenator was used for this group.
(2) Group 2: were reinfused with autologous blood only. Blood was withdrawn as in Group 1 patients and was stored for subsequent transfusion.
(3) Group 3: underwent routine management, using a Bentley bubble oxygenator without specific blood conservation techniques.
NB: In Groups 2 and 3, the blood remaining in the oxygenator at the termination of CPB was returned to the patient before decannulation, or collected in a bag for immediate use to provide optimum filling presures and haemodynamic stability in the post‐bypass period. Bank blood (whole blood) was subsequently used in all groups if the haematocrit was less than 25%.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Re‐exploration for bleeding.
Chest drainage.
Hct levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Tempe 2001

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

60 patients undergoing cardiac valve surgery were randomised to 1 of 3 groups:
1) Group 1 (Cell salvage group): n=20; M/F=14/6; mean age (+/‐sd) = 27.7+/‐10.1 years
(2) Group 2 (Aprotinin group): n=20; M/F=12/8; mean age (+/‐sd) = 25.9+/‐11.1 years
(3) Group 3 (Control group): n=20; M/F=12/8; mean age (+/‐sd) = 26.6+/‐7.35 years.

Interventions

(1) Group1: patients were treated with cell salvage using a Dideco system before heparin and after protamine administration.
(2) Group 2: patients were treated with aprotinin at the dose of 30 000KIU/kg was added to the prime with a further 15 000 KIU/kg added at the end of each hour of CPB.
(3) Group 3: patients underwent routine management which included the collection of autologous blood during the pre‐CPB period.
NB: Groups 1 and 3 had blood remaining in the oxygenator at the conclusion of CPB returned before decannulation or collected in a bag for immediate use to provide optimal filling pressures and hemodynamic stability in the post‐CPB period.

Outcomes

Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Re‐exploration for bleeding.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Thomas 2001

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

231 patients undergoing elective total knee replacement surgery were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Cell salvage group): n=115; M/F=44/71; mean age of males = 67.4 years; mean age of females = 70.5 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=116; M/F=55/61; mean age of males = 69.7 years; mean age of females = 70.2 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients received autotransfusion of wound drainage if the volume of blood collected was greater than 125 ml post‐operatively. The collected blood was washed and re‐suspended in saline before re‐infusion using a centrifugal cell washing machine (Cell Saver 5 ‐ Haemonetics). Patients in the cell salvage group were transfused allogeneic red blood cells if their haemoglobin fell below a haemoglobin level of 9.0 g/dL after autotransfusion was completed.
(2) Group 2: were treated without the use of cell salvage (autotransfusion). All drainage blood was discarded. Patients in the control group were transfused allogeneic red blood cells if their haemoglobin fell below a haemoglobin level of 9.0 g/dL.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Complications.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Thurer 1979

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

113 consecutive adult patients undergoing cardiac surgical procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=54; M/F=48/6; mean age = 55.9 years (range 24‐72 years).
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=59; M/F=55/4; mean age = 54.8 years (range 38‐73 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: shed mediastinal blood was collected post‐operatively by an autotransfusion system (Sorenson). Suction was applied (‐20cmH2O), allowing shed blood to flow into the upper bag of the system and then through two 170 micron filters into a lower 800ml collection bag. The lower bag was then disconnected from the system and its contents infused, the collected blood being transfused through an in‐line 40 micron filter. No blood was allowed to remain in the system longer than 4 hours. Shed blood that was not utilised during this time period was discarded. When notable bleeding ceased (4‐8 hours) retransfusion was no longer employed.
(2) Group 2: received usual care without the use of cell salvage.
NB: Intra‐operative and post‐operative haemodilution was performed in all patients but not equally distributed between groups.

Outcomes

Amount of blood collected by the cell saver.
Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Complications.
Myocardial infarction.
Mortality.
Post‐operative infections.
Renal function impariment.
Fluid replacement.
Blood loss.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Unsworth 1996

Methods

Patients were randomised on the day before surgery using a computer randomisation programme. Method of allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

105 patients undergoing primary elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomised to 1 of 3 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Control group): n=34; M/F=30/4; median age = 63 years (range 58‐67 years).
(2) Group 2 (Uncoated Autotransfusion group): n=36; M/F=30/6; median age = 64 years (range 58‐67 years).
(3) Group 3 (Heparin Coated Autotransfusion group): n=35; M/F=31/4; median age = 62 years (range 55‐67 years).

Interventions

(1) Group 1: chest drains were connected to underwater sealed drainage bottles with suction applied at 10Kpa. Cell salvage was not performed.
(2) Group 2: chest drains were connected to a cardiotomy reservoir (CATR 3500) to which suction at 10Kpa was applied. This reservoir contained a 20 micron filter which removed debris and clot from the drained blood. From there blood was carried via an infusion pump which incorporated an air‐in‐line detector to a peripheral line. Autotransfusion commenced when there was more than 100ml in the cardiotomy reservoir and continued thereafter for 10 hours. Infusion was in hourly pulses according to the previous hours drainage.
(3) Group 3: the autotransfusion circuit was bonded with heparin (heparin coated circuit). The heparin‐bonded circuit comprised an identical system of drains and tubes except that all surfaces, including the cardiotomy reservoir and connector but excluding the piston chamber of the infusion pump and the intravenous cannula, were coated with heparin by the Duraflow II methodology.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients receiving allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Re‐exploration for bleeding.
Blood loss.
Mortality.
Haematological variables.
Coagulation variables.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Ward 1993

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

35 consecutive male patients undergoing elective myocardial revascularisation or valve replacement were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group):
n=18; mean age (+/‐sd) 64+/‐8.5 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=17; mean age (+/‐sd) 63+/‐8.2 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients received autotransfusions with mediastinal shed blood for the first 12 hours post‐operatively. Autotransfusion involved reinfusion within 4 hours, a minimum of 100ml of chest drainage in the reservoir before initiation of autotransfusion, and discontinuation of autotransfusion for core temperatures greater than 39.5 degrees celsius. A two‐filter system was employed to minimise emboli.
(2) Group 2: were treated with standard chest drainage and fluid replacement.
NB: Mediastinal chest drainage tubes were placed in all patients and connected to an in‐line autotransfusion system. The chest drainage system was placed on suction (20cm H20), and the tubes were milked every 15 minutes. Haemodilution was tolerated to a haemoglobin level of 8.0g/dL/.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood.
Complications.
Re‐operation for bleeding.
Chest tube drainage.
Mortality.
Myocardial infarction.
Wound infection.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Zhao 1996

Methods

Methods of randomisation and allocation concealment was not described.

Participants

42 patients undergoing cardiac operations were randomised to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autotransfusion group): n=22; mean (+/‐sd) age = 49+/‐11 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=20; mean (+/‐sd) age = 45+/‐12 years.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients received non‐washed shed mediasinal blood during the post‐operative period.
(2) Group 2: received banked blood only. No autotransfusion was performed.

Outcomes

Amount of blood re‐transfused from the cell saver.
Amount of allogeneic blood transfused.
Blood loss.
Hb levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol not reported.
English abstract only.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Zhao 2003

Methods

Method of randomisation and allocation concealment were unclear. Participants were not blind to treatment allocation and blinding of the outcome assessor was unclear.

Participants

60 patients undergoing elective primary coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups:
(1) Group 1 (Autologous transfusion group): n=30; M/F=26/4; mean (+/‐ sd) age = 59.5+/‐8.0 years.
(2) Group 2 (Control group): n=30; M/F=27/3; mean (+/‐sd) age = 59.2+/‐8.2 years.
Exclusion criteria: bleeding time more than 10 minutes due to anti‐coagulant use; pre‐operative Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) less than 0.40; diabetes; pulmonary or renal disease.

Interventions

(1) Group 1: patients received non‐washed shed mediastinal blood retransfused postoperatively after CABG using a cell saver device (Beijing PerMed Biomedical Engineering Company) up to 18 hours post‐surgery. Shed blood not returned within 4 hours was discarded and a new bag attached. When more than 200mls shed mediastinal blood collected within 4 hours the patients received autologous blood if volume replacement was considered necessary. Extracorporeal blood was routinely returned to patients after CABG. Length of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) = 121+/‐26 minutes. Aortic cross‐clamp time 74+/‐15 minutes.
(2) Group 2: received banked allogeneic blood only. Cell salvage (autotransfusion) was not used. Extracorporeal blood was routinely returned to patients after CABG. Length of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) = 121+/‐58 minutes. Aortic cross‐clamp time 76+/‐33 minutes.

Volume of autologous blood collected/retransfusion.

Outcomes

Number of patients transfused allogeneic blood; volume of allogeneic blood transfused (mls).
Number of patients trasnfused autologous blood.
Volume of autologous blood transfused (mls).
Post‐operative blood loss (median and range).
Pre‐operative Hb levels.

Notes

Transfusion protocol used.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Adan 1988

Insufficient data.

Bartels 1996

Compared two active interventions. No control group.

Bell 1992

Insufficient data.

Breakwell 2000

Insufficient data.

Dalrymple‐Hay 2001

Duplicate article.

Deramoudt 1991

Insufficient data.

Elawad 1992

Inappropriate control group.

Farrer 1997

Duplicate article.

Jacobi 1997

Insufficient data.

Kristensen 1992

Insufficient data.

Mac 1993

Insufficient data.

Mayer 1985

Insufficient data.

McShane 1987

Insufficient data.

Schaff 1978b

Duplicate article.

Schmidt 1997a

Duplicate article.

Schmidt 1997b

Duplicate article.

Skoura 1997

Insufficient data.

Thompson 1990

Insufficient data.

Trubel 1995

Compared two active interventions. No control group.

Vertrees 1996

Inappropriate control group.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (All Studies) Show forest plot

47

3857

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.53, 0.71]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (All Studies).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (All Studies).

2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

2.1 Transfusion Protocol

38

2867

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.54, 0.73]

2.2 No Transfusion Protocol

9

990

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.22, 0.88]

3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

3.1 Cardiac

23

1784

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.68, 0.87]

3.2 Orthopaedic

21

1887

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.32, 0.54]

3.3 Vascular

3

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.13, 2.36]

4 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood ‐ (Washed vs Unwashed) Show forest plot

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 4 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood ‐ (Washed vs Unwashed).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 4 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood ‐ (Washed vs Unwashed).

4.1 Washed

21

1600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.44, 0.68]

4.2 Unwashed

26

2174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.60, 0.84]

5 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing) Show forest plot

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 5 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 5 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

5.1 Intra‐operative

7

564

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.35, 0.80]

5.2 Post‐operative

33

2877

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.57, 0.79]

5.3 Both Intra & Post‐operative

6

294

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.31, 1.04]

6 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (All Studies) Show forest plot

27

1937

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.67 [‐0.89, ‐0.45]

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 6 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (All Studies).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 6 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (All Studies).

7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

27

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

7.1 Transfusion Protocol

23

1544

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.61 [‐0.84, ‐0.37]

7.2 No Transfusion Protocol

4

393

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.26 [‐2.11, ‐0.40]

8 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

27

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 8 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 8 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

8.1 Cardiac

17

1368

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.64 [‐0.90, ‐0.39]

8.2 Orthopaedic

7

383

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.89 [‐1.40, ‐0.39]

8.3 Vascular

3

186

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.34, 0.38]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Cardiac) Show forest plot

23

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 1 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Cardiac).

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 1 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Cardiac).

1.1 Washed

9

654

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.47, 0.80]

1.2 Unwashed

14

1130

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.78, 0.97]

2 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Orthopaedic) Show forest plot

21

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 2 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Orthopaedic).

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 2 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Orthopaedic).

2.1 Washed

9

760

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.34, 0.64]

2.2 Unwashed

12

1044

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.30, 0.60]

3 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Vascular) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 3 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Vascular).

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 3 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Vascular).

3.1 Washed

3

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.13, 2.36]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Control) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Control).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Control).

1.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

28

2064

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.49, 0.73]

2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

2.1 Transfusion Protocol

24

1674

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.52, 0.77]

2.2 No Transfusion Protocol

4

390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.02, 4.08]

3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

3.1 Cardiac

14

1029

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.70, 0.93]

3.2 Orthopaedic

11

849

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.24, 0.52]

3.3 Vascular

3

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.13, 2.36]

4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed) Show forest plot

27

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).

4.1 Washed

14

1110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.39, 0.71]

4.2 Unwashed

13

834

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.59, 0.91]

5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

5.1 Intra‐operative

5

382

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.39, 0.95]

5.2 Post‐operative

18

1462

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.46, 0.79]

5.3 Both

5

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.28, 0.98]

6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Control) Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Control).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Control).

6.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

18

1260

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.23, ‐0.56]

7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

7.1 Transfusion Protocol

15

969

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.81 [‐1.16, ‐0.46]

7.2 No Transfusion Protocol

3

291

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.64 [‐2.96, ‐0.33]

8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

8.1 Cardiac

11

866

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.97 [‐1.40, ‐0.55]

8.2 Orthopaedic

4

208

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.13 [‐1.78, ‐0.48]

8.3 Vascular

3

186

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.34, 0.38]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Active) Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Active).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Active).

1.1 Cell Salvage (Active vs Active)

20

1836

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.50, 0.77]

2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

2.1 Transfusion Protocol

15

1236

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.50, 0.79]

2.2 No Transfusion Protocol

5

600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.35, 1.00]

3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

3.1 Cardiac

10

798

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.56, 0.87]

3.2 Orthopaedic

10

1038

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.38, 0.69]

4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed) Show forest plot

21

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).

4.1 Washed

7

484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.41, 0.73]

4.2 Unwashed

14

1390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.56, 0.95]

5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing) Show forest plot

21

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

5.1 Intra‐operative

3

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.27, 0.82]

5.2 Post‐operative

16

1535

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.55, 0.90]

5.3 Both

2

117

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.42, 1.22]

6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Active) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Active).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Active).

6.1 Cell Salvage (Active vs Active)

8

627

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐0.68, ‐0.19]

7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

7.1 Transfusion Protocol

7

525

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.67, ‐0.12]

7.2 No Transfusion Protocol

1

102

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.20, ‐0.18]

8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

8.1 Cardiac

6

501

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.67, ‐0.12]

8.2 Orthopaedic

2

126

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.20, ‐0.18]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Total Blood Loss (All Studies) Show forest plot

23

1624

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐41.44 [‐111.57, 28.69]

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 1 Total Blood Loss (All Studies).

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 1 Total Blood Loss (All Studies).

2 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Control) Show forest plot

18

1168

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐32.63 [‐122.30, 57.03]

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 2 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Control).

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 2 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Control).

3 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Active) Show forest plot

5

456

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐61.98 [‐179.47, 55.50]

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 3 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Active).

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 3 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Active).

Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Language of Publication (All Studies) Show forest plot

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 1 Language of Publication (All Studies).

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 1 Language of Publication (All Studies).

1.1 English

41

3583

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.51, 0.71]

1.2 Non‐English

5

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.49, 0.82]

2 Methodological Quality (All Studies) Show forest plot

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 2 Methodological Quality (All Studies).

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 2 Methodological Quality (All Studies).

2.1 Grade B

35

2874

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.55, 0.75]

2.2 Grade C

11

918

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.28, 0.80]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. Adverse Events & Other Outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

15

1212

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.55, 2.70]

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 1 Mortality ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 1 Mortality ‐ All Studies.

2 Mortality ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 2 Mortality ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 2 Mortality ‐ CS vs Control.

2.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

11

811

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.65, 3.61]

3 Mortality ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

4

401

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.03, 2.40]

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 3 Mortality ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 3 Mortality ‐ Active vs Active.

4 Re‐operation for bleeding ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

14

1119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.55, 1.81]

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 4 Re‐operation for bleeding ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 4 Re‐operation for bleeding ‐ All Studies.

5 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 5 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 5 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ CS vs Control.

5.1 Active vs Control

8

592

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.47, 2.48]

6 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

6

527

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.39, 2.15]

Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 6 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 6 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ Active vs Active.

7 Any Infection ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

13

1390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.44, 1.25]

Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 7 Any Infection ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 7 Any Infection ‐ All Studies.

8 Any Infection ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

9

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 8 Any Infection ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 8 Any Infection ‐ CS vs Control.

8.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

9

826

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.41, 1.37]

9 Any Infection ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

4

564

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.63]

Analysis 7.9

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 9 Any Infection ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 9 Any Infection ‐ Active vs Active.

10 Wound Complication ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

9

730

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.46, 1.81]

Analysis 7.10

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 10 Wound Complication ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 10 Wound Complication ‐ All Studies.

11 Wound Complication ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.11

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 11 Wound Complication ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 11 Wound Complication ‐ CS vs Control.

11.1 Active vs Control

7

504

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.42, 1.81]

12 Wound Complication ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

2

226

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.24 [0.13, 11.75]

Analysis 7.12

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 12 Wound Complication ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 12 Wound Complication ‐ Active vs Active.

13 Any Thrombosis ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

7

497

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.56, 3.83]

Analysis 7.13

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 13 Any Thrombosis ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 13 Any Thrombosis ‐ All Studies.

14 Any Thrombosis ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.14

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 14 Any Thrombosis ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 14 Any Thrombosis ‐ CS vs Control.

14.1 Active vs Control

6

379

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.56, 3.83]

15 Stroke ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

4

496

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.17, 2.50]

Analysis 7.15

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 15 Stroke ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 15 Stroke ‐ All Studies.

16 Stroke ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.16

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 16 Stroke ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 16 Stroke ‐ CS vs Control.

16.1 Active vs Control

3

298

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.14, 3.72]

17 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

9

831

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.40, 1.43]

Analysis 7.17

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 17 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 17 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ All Studies.

18 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.18

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 18 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 18 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ CS vs Control.

18.1 Active vs Control

5

448

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.28, 1.19]

19 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

4

383

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.89 [0.51, 6.98]

Analysis 7.19

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 19 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 19 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ Active vs Active.

20 Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.20

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 20 Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT).

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 20 Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT).

20.1 Active vs Control

4

249

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.31, 2.77]

21 Hospital Length of Stay (LOS) Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 7.21

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 21 Hospital Length of Stay (LOS).

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 21 Hospital Length of Stay (LOS).

21.1 Active vs Control

5

397

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.28 [‐2.65, 0.08]

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (All Studies).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (All Studies).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 4 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood ‐ (Washed vs Unwashed).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 4 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood ‐ (Washed vs Unwashed).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 5 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 5 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 6 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (All Studies).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 6 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (All Studies).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 8 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies), Outcome 8 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 1 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Cardiac).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 1 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Cardiac).

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 2 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Orthopaedic).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 2 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Orthopaedic).

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 3 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Vascular).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed), Outcome 3 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Vascular).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Control).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Control).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Control).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Control).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Active).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Active).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Active).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Active).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.7

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol).

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.8

Comparison 4 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active), Outcome 8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery).

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 1 Total Blood Loss (All Studies).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 1 Total Blood Loss (All Studies).

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 2 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Control).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 2 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Control).

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 3 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Active).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss, Outcome 3 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Active).

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 1 Language of Publication (All Studies).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 1 Language of Publication (All Studies).

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 2 Methodological Quality (All Studies).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality), Outcome 2 Methodological Quality (All Studies).

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 1 Mortality ‐ All Studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 1 Mortality ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 2 Mortality ‐ CS vs Control.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 2 Mortality ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 3 Mortality ‐ Active vs Active.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 3 Mortality ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 4 Re‐operation for bleeding ‐ All Studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 4 Re‐operation for bleeding ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 5 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ CS vs Control.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 5 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 6 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ Active vs Active.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 6 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 7 Any Infection ‐ All Studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 7 Any Infection ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 8 Any Infection ‐ CS vs Control.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 8 Any Infection ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 9 Any Infection ‐ Active vs Active.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.9

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 9 Any Infection ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 10 Wound Complication ‐ All Studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.10

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 10 Wound Complication ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 11 Wound Complication ‐ CS vs Control.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.11

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 11 Wound Complication ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 12 Wound Complication ‐ Active vs Active.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.12

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 12 Wound Complication ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 13 Any Thrombosis ‐ All Studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.13

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 13 Any Thrombosis ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 14 Any Thrombosis ‐ CS vs Control.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.14

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 14 Any Thrombosis ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 15 Stroke ‐ All Studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.15

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 15 Stroke ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 16 Stroke ‐ CS vs Control.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.16

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 16 Stroke ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 17 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ All Studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.17

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 17 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ All Studies.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 18 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ CS vs Control.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.18

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 18 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ CS vs Control.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 19 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ Active vs Active.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.19

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 19 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ Active vs Active.

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 20 Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.20

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 20 Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT).

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 21 Hospital Length of Stay (LOS).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.21

Comparison 7 Adverse Events & Other Outcomes, Outcome 21 Hospital Length of Stay (LOS).

Comparison 1. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (All Studies) Show forest plot

47

3857

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.53, 0.71]

2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Transfusion Protocol

38

2867

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.54, 0.73]

2.2 No Transfusion Protocol

9

990

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.22, 0.88]

3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Cardiac

23

1784

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.68, 0.87]

3.2 Orthopaedic

21

1887

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.32, 0.54]

3.3 Vascular

3

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.13, 2.36]

4 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood ‐ (Washed vs Unwashed) Show forest plot

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Washed

21

1600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.44, 0.68]

4.2 Unwashed

26

2174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.60, 0.84]

5 No.Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing) Show forest plot

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Intra‐operative

7

564

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.35, 0.80]

5.2 Post‐operative

33

2877

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.57, 0.79]

5.3 Both Intra & Post‐operative

6

294

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.31, 1.04]

6 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (All Studies) Show forest plot

27

1937

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.67 [‐0.89, ‐0.45]

7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

27

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Transfusion Protocol

23

1544

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.61 [‐0.84, ‐0.37]

7.2 No Transfusion Protocol

4

393

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.26 [‐2.11, ‐0.40]

8 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

27

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Cardiac

17

1368

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.64 [‐0.90, ‐0.39]

8.2 Orthopaedic

7

383

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.89 [‐1.40, ‐0.39]

8.3 Vascular

3

186

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.34, 0.38]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (All studies)
Comparison 2. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Cardiac) Show forest plot

23

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Washed

9

654

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.47, 0.80]

1.2 Unwashed

14

1130

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.78, 0.97]

2 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Orthopaedic) Show forest plot

21

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Washed

9

760

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.34, 0.64]

2.2 Unwashed

12

1044

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.30, 0.60]

3 No. Exposed Allogeneic Blood (Vascular) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Washed

3

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.13, 2.36]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Washed vs Unwashed)
Comparison 3. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Control) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

28

2064

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.49, 0.73]

2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Transfusion Protocol

24

1674

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.52, 0.77]

2.2 No Transfusion Protocol

4

390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.02, 4.08]

3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Cardiac

14

1029

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.70, 0.93]

3.2 Orthopaedic

11

849

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.24, 0.52]

3.3 Vascular

3

186

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.13, 2.36]

4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed) Show forest plot

27

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Washed

14

1110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.39, 0.71]

4.2 Unwashed

13

834

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.59, 0.91]

5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing) Show forest plot

28

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Intra‐operative

5

382

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.39, 0.95]

5.2 Post‐operative

18

1462

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.46, 0.79]

5.3 Both

5

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.28, 0.98]

6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Control) Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

18

1260

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.90 [‐1.23, ‐0.56]

7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Transfusion Protocol

15

969

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.81 [‐1.16, ‐0.46]

7.2 No Transfusion Protocol

3

291

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.64 [‐2.96, ‐0.33]

8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Cardiac

11

866

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.97 [‐1.40, ‐0.55]

8.2 Orthopaedic

4

208

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.13 [‐1.78, ‐0.48]

8.3 Vascular

3

186

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.34, 0.38]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Control)
Comparison 4. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Active vs Active) Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Cell Salvage (Active vs Active)

20

1836

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.50, 0.77]

2 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Transfusion Protocol

15

1236

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.50, 0.79]

2.2 No Transfusion Protocol

5

600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.35, 1.00]

3 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Cardiac

10

798

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.56, 0.87]

3.2 Orthopaedic

10

1038

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.38, 0.69]

4 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Washed vs Unwashed) Show forest plot

21

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Washed

7

484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.41, 0.73]

4.2 Unwashed

14

1390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.56, 0.95]

5 No. Exposed to Allogeneic Blood (Timing) Show forest plot

21

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Intra‐operative

3

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.27, 0.82]

5.2 Post‐operative

16

1535

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.55, 0.90]

5.3 Both

2

117

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.42, 1.22]

6 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Active vs Active) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Cell Salvage (Active vs Active)

8

627

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.44 [‐0.68, ‐0.19]

7 Units of Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Transfusion Protocol) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Transfusion Protocol

7

525

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.67, ‐0.12]

7.2 No Transfusion Protocol

1

102

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.20, ‐0.18]

8 Units Allogeneic Blood Transfused (Type of Surgery) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Cardiac

6

501

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.67, ‐0.12]

8.2 Orthopaedic

2

126

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.20, ‐0.18]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Active vs Active)
Comparison 5. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Total Blood Loss (All Studies) Show forest plot

23

1624

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐41.44 [‐111.57, 28.69]

2 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Control) Show forest plot

18

1168

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐32.63 [‐122.30, 57.03]

3 Total Blood Loss (Active vs Active) Show forest plot

5

456

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐61.98 [‐179.47, 55.50]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Loss
Comparison 6. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Language of Publication (All Studies) Show forest plot

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 English

41

3583

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.51, 0.71]

1.2 Non‐English

5

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.49, 0.82]

2 Methodological Quality (All Studies) Show forest plot

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Grade B

35

2874

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.55, 0.75]

2.2 Grade C

11

918

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.28, 0.80]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Cell Salvage ‐ Blood Transfused (Language & Methodological Quality)
Comparison 7. Adverse Events & Other Outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mortality ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

15

1212

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.55, 2.70]

2 Mortality ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

11

811

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.65, 3.61]

3 Mortality ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

4

401

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.03, 2.40]

4 Re‐operation for bleeding ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

14

1119

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.55, 1.81]

5 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Active vs Control

8

592

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.47, 2.48]

6 Re‐operation for Bleeding ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

6

527

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.39, 2.15]

7 Any Infection ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

13

1390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.44, 1.25]

8 Any Infection ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

9

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Cell Salvage vs Control

9

826

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.41, 1.37]

9 Any Infection ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

4

564

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.63]

10 Wound Complication ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

9

730

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.46, 1.81]

11 Wound Complication ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Active vs Control

7

504

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.42, 1.81]

12 Wound Complication ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

2

226

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.24 [0.13, 11.75]

13 Any Thrombosis ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

7

497

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.56, 3.83]

14 Any Thrombosis ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Active vs Control

6

379

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.46 [0.56, 3.83]

15 Stroke ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

4

496

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.17, 2.50]

16 Stroke ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Active vs Control

3

298

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.14, 3.72]

17 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ All Studies Show forest plot

9

831

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.40, 1.43]

18 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ CS vs Control Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.1 Active vs Control

5

448

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.58 [0.28, 1.19]

19 Non‐Fatal Myocardial Infarction ‐ Active vs Active Show forest plot

4

383

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.89 [0.51, 6.98]

20 Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 Active vs Control

4

249

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.31, 2.77]

21 Hospital Length of Stay (LOS) Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.1 Active vs Control

5

397

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.28 [‐2.65, 0.08]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Adverse Events & Other Outcomes