Article

Special Report

Report from AmSECT’s International Consortium for Evidence-Based Perfusion Consensus Statement: Minimal Criteria for Reporting Cardiopulmonary Bypass-Related Contributions to Red Blood Cell Transfusions Associated With Adult Cardiac Surgery

^* Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
^† Cardiac Surgery Research and Perfusion, Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia
^‡ SpecialtyCare, Nashville, Tennessee
^§ Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
^¶ University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
^‖ Cardiovascular Perfusion, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine
^** INOVA Health Systems, Fairfax, Virginia
^†† Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
^‡‡ Department of Cardiac Surgery, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom
^§§ Department of Anesthesiology and Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
^¶¶ Cardiovascular Perfusion Services, The Medical Center—Navicent Health, Macon, Georgia
^‖‖ Lutheran Medical Center, Wheatridge, Colorado
^*** Banner Health Hospitals, Phoenix, Arizona
^††† Mercy Medical Center, Des Moines, Iowa

Address correspondence to: Donald S. Likosky, PhD, Section Head, Section of Health Services Research and Quality, Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: likosky@med.umich.edu

Received: 3 May 2015
Accepted: 1 July 2015

Abstract

Gaps remain in our understanding of the contribution of bypass-related practices associated with red blood cell (RBC) transfusions after cardiac surgery. Variability exists in the reporting of bypass-related practices in the peer-reviewed literature. In an effort to create uniformity in reporting, a draft statement outlining proposed minimal criteria for reporting cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)-related contributions (i.e., RBC data collection/documentation, clinical considerations for transfusions, equipment details, and clinical endpoints) was presented in conjunction with the American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology’s (AmSECT’s) 2014 Quality and Outcomes Meeting (Baltimore, MD). Based on presentations and feedback from the conference, coauthors (n = 14) developed and subsequently voted on each proposed data element. Data elements receiving a total of ≤4 votes were dropped from further consideration, 5–9 votes were considered as “Recommended,” and elements receiving ≥10 votes were considered as “Mandatory.” A total of 52 elements were classified as mandatory, 16 recommended, and 14 dropped. There are 8 mandatory data elements for RBC data collection/documentation, 24 for clinical considerations for transfusions, 13 for equipment details, and 7 for clinical endpoints. We present 52 mandatory data elements reflecting CPB-related contributions to RBC transfusions. Consistency of such reporting would offer our community an increased opportunity to shed light on the relationship between intra-operative practices and RBC transfusions.