Abstract
Background: Ultrafiltration is used with cardiopulmonary bypass to reduce the effects of hemodilution and restore electrolyte balance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the effect of conventional and modified ultrafiltration on intraoperative blood transfusion.
Methods: Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to perform a meta-analysis of studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating conventional ultrafiltration (CUF) and modified ultrafiltration (MUF) on the primary outcome of intraoperative red cell transfusions.
Results: A total of 7 RCTs (n = 928) were included, comparing modified ultrafiltration (n = 473 patients) to controls (n = 455 patients) and 2 observational studies (n = 47,007), comparing conventional ultrafiltration (n = 21,748) to controls (n = 25,427). Overall, MUF was associated with transfusion of fewer intraoperative red cell units per patient (n = 7); MD −0.73 units; 95% CI −1.12 to −0.35 p = 0.04; p for heterogeneity = 0.0001, I 2 = 55%) compared to controls. CUF was no difference in intraoperative red cell transfusions compared to controls (n = 2); OR 3.09; 95% CI 0.26–36.59; p = 0.37; p for heterogeneity = 0.94, I 2 = 0%. Review of the included observational studies revealed an association between larger volumes (>2.2 L in a 70 kg patient) of CUF and risk of acute kidney injury (AKI).
Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that MUF is associated with fewer intraoperative red cell transfusions. Based on limited studies, CUF does not appear to be associated with a difference in intraoperative red cell transfusion.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
