Three of the more common clinical situations faced by the medical consultant are the patient with preexisting anemia, the assessment of bleeding risk, and the perioperative management of oral anticoagulation.
The key issue in the anemic patient is to determine the need for preoperative diagnostic evaluation and the need for transfusion. When feasible, the diagnostic evaluation of the patient with previously unrecognized anemia should be done prior to surgery because certain types of anemia (particularly sickle cell disease and immune hemolytic anemia) may have implications for perioperative management. Preoperative anemia is common, with a prevalence of 43% in a large cohort of elderly veterans undergoing surgery. In this cohort, morbidity and mortality increased as the preoperative hemoglobin level decreased, even after adjusting for comorbidities. No data exist to identify a specific preoperative hemoglobin level that should prompt transfusion prior to surgery. It is also not known whether such transfusions will improve postoperative outcomes. Determination of the need for preoperative transfusion in an individual patient must consider factors other than the absolute hemoglobin level, including the presence of cardiopulmonary disease, the type of surgery, and the likely severity of surgical blood loss. The few studies that have compared different postoperative transfusion thresholds failed to demonstrate improved outcomes with a more aggressive transfusion strategy. One trial randomized patients undergoing hip fracture repair to either transfusion to maintain a hemoglobin level > 10 g/dL or transfusion for symptomatic anemia. Patients receiving symptom-triggered transfusion received far few units of packed red blood cells without increased mortality or complication rates.
The most important component of the bleeding risk assessment is a directed bleeding history (see Table 3–1). Patients who are reliable historians and who reveal no suggestion of abnormal bleeding on directed bleeding history and physical examination are at very low risk for having an occult bleeding disorder. Laboratory tests of hemostatic parameters in these patients are generally not needed. When the directed bleeding history is unreliable or incomplete or when abnormal bleeding is suggested, a formal evaluation of hemostasisshould be done prior to surgery and should include measurement of the prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and platelet count (see Chapter 13).
Patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulation are at risk for thromboembolic complications when an operation requires interruption of this therapy. In a cohort study of 1293 interruptions of warfarin therapy for invasive procedures, the 30-day thromboembolic risk was 0.7%. There are insufficient data to determine the excess risk incurred by holding warfarin therapy or whether this risk may be mitigated through the practice of “bridging” anticoagulation, where unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin is administered parenterally while oral anticoagulants are held until just prior to surgery. The bleeding risk associated with bridging anticoagulation can be substantial. Patients in this cohort who received bridging anticoagulation had a 13% incidence of clinically significant bleeding, compared with 0.8% for patients who did not receive bridging anticoagulation. Although firm evidence-based guidelines for perioperative bridging are lacking, most experts recommend bridging therapy only in patients at high risk for thromboembolism. An approach to perioperative anticoagulation management is shown in Table 3–5, but the recommendations must be considered in the context of patient preference and hemorrhagic risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment