| Study |
Savings in allogeneic blood transfusion |
The other benefits of study |
Wong [17] (ANH+ICS)
2002, randomized st.
N=140 |
Yes
56 % ALL vs. 43 % AUT, p=0.122 (0-4) ALL vs. 0 (0-2)AUT unit, p=0.008 |
No differences in complications and hospital stay |
Torella [31] (ANH+ICS)
2002, retrospective st.
N=110 |
No |
Blood loss was too small to justify cell salvage, ANH is suitable strategy |
Haynes [32] (ANH+ICS)
2002, randomized st.
N=72 |
Yes
251 units ALL vs. 103 AUT, p=0.008 |
No difference in morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, cost neutral |
Wolowczyk [33] (ANH, ICS in both groups)
2001, randomized st
N=72 |
Yes
2 units AUT vs. 3 units ALL, p=0.02 |
No difference in postoperative outcome |
Wolowczyk [33] (ANH, ICS in both groups)
2003, randomized st
N=34 |
No |
- |
Wolowczyk [33] (ANH, ICS in both groups)
2005, randomized st
N=35 |
- |
No impact on SIRS response |
Mannova [40] (ANH)
2007, randomized st
N=50 |
- |
No better toleration of hemodynamic changes during aortic clamping and de-clamping, no difference in postoperative myocardial ischemia |
Tawfick [14]
2008 retrospective cohort st
N=187 |
Yes
2 or less units AUT vs. 3 or more units ALL
p<0.0001 |
Yes
+ shorter ICU, hospital stay |
AUT: Autotransfusion group; ALL: Allogeneic group.