1. Introduction
Blood transfusion saves lives. However, despite improved transfusion techniques and practices developed over centuries [
1], adverse outcomes still occur [
2,
3]. These outcomes include postoperative infection [
4], respiratory failure [
5], myocardial infarction, stroke [
6], renal failure, multiorgan failure [
7], thromboembolism [
8], other immunological consequences [
9], traditional transfusion complications [
10], and transfusion complications in patients who regularly use anticoagulation medication. Even though often underestimated, the costs associated with these adverse outcomes are significant [
6]. Downstream adverse outcomes related to transfusion and immunological consequences occur at a later stage within the perioperative journey in the presence of many other confounding factors. It is therefore difficult to identify or attribute these adverse outcomes to a specific transfusion event [
6].
According to the NBA (National Blood Authority, Australian government), the overall cost of ABT in Australia (population 25.7 million) [
11] is over AUD 1 billion per year [
12]. This does not include costs related to the treatment of adverse outcomes. Patient blood management (PBM) strategies reduce blood product requirements, adverse outcomes, and related costs. Intraoperative cell salvage (ICS), as a PBM strategy, is a safe alternative to ABT and permits autologous (own) blood lost during surgery to be collected, processed, and reinfused [
13,
14,
15]. We know that ICS provides immunological benefits, improves outcomes, and reduces blood product requirements, as was previously confirmed during clinical studies and in vitro [
4,
14,
15]. Despite this evidence, many patients who currently receive ABT do not have the opportunity to benefit from ICS.
The analysis of transfusion costs for both ICS and ABT should ideally include all aspects related to direct costs, indirect costs, and adverse outcomes to capture the full cost burden [
6,
9,
16,
17]. The requirement for specialised staff and equipment led to ICS being perceived as costly to healthcare services. Over the past three decades, most studies have therefore focused on comparing costs related to consumables, device purchase, and maintenance for ICS with the purchase cost of allogeneic packed red blood cell (pRBC) units and have not included costs related to adverse outcomes [
18,
19].
Outcomes related to TRIM are extensively studied in the literature (PHD thesis) [
2,
14,
20]. Modern science considers outcomes beyond the traditionally studied outcomes (i.e., infection and cancer recurrence) [
15,
21]. We could, however, not find any studies that included all transfusion-related adverse outcomes associated with immune modulation (TRIM) (e.g., not only wound infection but also pneumonia, renal failure, cardiovascular and stroke-related outcomes, etc.), used objective and standardised ICD-10 coding, and included an assessment of the significance and impact of the associated cost burden (considering pRBCs and other blood products, length of stay in hospital (LOS), and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU LOS)). We agree with Ning et al., who in a narrative review considers the value and challenges relevant to “big data” in transfusion medicine in the future. There is a potential that database analysis and artificial intelligence will, in the future, lead to improved clarity of the relevance of outcomes related to TRIM and associated organ dysfunction [
22]. Firstly, this novel study was designed to satisfy these existing knowledge gaps identified through an extensive literature review. Secondly, study methods (with targeted data collection) were designed to overcome some limitations and areas of controversy identified in previous studies through the inclusion of a large sample of transfused patients (n > 2129), all procedures and subspecialties currently requiring transfusion, and three clinically relevant study groups, all while considering multiple adverse outcomes associated with TRIM.
From a previous audit at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (RBWH), we identified that many patients receiving RBCs could benefit from ICS instead (Roets et al. [
23]). According to a staff survey considering “experiences, conceptions and barriers” to the implementation of ICS, the availability of additional trained staff and costs were major obstacles to the wider use of ICS (Tognolini et al. [
24]). This study assessed whether costs related to adverse outcomes were different when considering transfusion models commonly represented in clinical care (i.e., ICS, RBCs, or RBCs and ICS).
The novelty of our study therefore lies in the study design (carefully considering each step in a pragmatic way to overcome familiar challenges), which was conducted in real life, within best practice-guided perioperative care, across a wide field of surgical subspecialties and procedures, in a large sample size (n = 2129), and considering objective ICD-10 coded adverse outcomes as determinants of overall expenditure (
Supplemental Table S1).
4. Discussion
A detailed retrospective study to assess the impact of perioperative transfusion on adverse outcome-related costs in a large quaternary referral hospital was conducted. Costs related to blood product requirements and ICU LOS were lower following ICS than following RBCs or RBCs&ICS. ICS was associated with the lowest frequency of adverse outcomes overall. Despite the previously reported results, ICS was not associated with a significantly reduced LOS.
When designing this study, the aim was to overcome some limitations identified by the authors of previous studies (i.e., the reasons why previous studies have not sufficiently addressed cost implications). Studies considering ICS costs varied from simple consumable usage calculations to detailed and extensive cost-effectiveness analyses [
14,
18,
31,
32], which often included small sample sizes, targeted specific surgical procedures commonly considered within the traditional ICS literature [
33], and excluded other procedures associated with major blood loss and those with additional surgical complexity (e.g., repeat procedures). Despite the potential clinical value often associated with ICS during these procedures, they were often excluded because they added complexity to the study designs [
34]. Many described ICS as “cost-effective” when its use resulted in a reduced (units of) RBC requirement (i.e., the cost of units of RBCs avoided) or an overall reduction in blood loss [
35] and did not consider costs associated with other blood products, overhead costs, and adverse outcomes [
14,
18,
19,
36]. ICS is not standardised across countries and hospitals, with different equipment, resource availability, techniques (i.e., washed and unwashed ICS), indications defined by local clinical policies, and different currencies across hospitals and countries [
14,
18]. Individual institutional considerations differ significantly (i.e., case acuity, procedure type, duration of surgery, inclusion or exclusion of certain cases with perceived cancer or infection risks, blood loss volume, relevant case numbers, available expertise, and additional staffing and training requirements) [
32]. Future multicentre international trials that consider these potential benefits are needed. However, the design of such studies that will overcome the challenges related to institutional differences in the ICS procedure will be complicated. In most large centres, fewer patients receive ICS compared to those receiving RBCs (due to availability of service), often resulting in studies considering small sample sizes for ICS. Smaller studies may not be adequately powered to assess specific outcomes that occur infrequently (e.g., wound infection) [
14], while the incidence of all types of infection (TRIM) coded in this large study population was 23.9% (509 outcomes/2129 patients). Davies et al. performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of ICS and recommended future observational studies with large sample sizes to overcome some of these limitations [
18]. The presence of clinically relevant confounding factors in transfusion research and the inability to truly blind an autotransfusion device during randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are additional complicating factors. Despite these limitations, scientific evidence demonstrates the potential cost benefits. Costs associated with reductions in allogeneic blood product requirements and adverse outcomes [
4,
37] may offset the equipment and staffing costs associated with ICS [
14,
38].
In a ground-breaking study by Leahy et al., the implementation of a PBM programme mainly focused on the diagnosis and treatment of preoperative anaemia [
6]. Significant reductions in ABT and subsequent cost savings when considering saved blood products, LOS, emergency readmissions, and activity-based costs of transfusion were confirmed. ICS may reduce costs in a similar way [
14,
18]. To ensure robust evidence that will inform a business case for change, costs to healthcare services associated with adverse outcomes (TRIM) (i.e., considering investigation, treatment, LOS, and ICU LOS) should be considered (6, 23, 1, 10). While the obvious costs associated with ICS, to purchase equipment and consumables, implementation, education, and additional staffing requirements, have been thoroughly investigated [
15,
18,
32,
37], this study now provides evidence of the costs associated with adverse outcomes [
4,
5,
7,
8,
39,
40,
41], potentially avoided by ICS, and previously unknown.
The authors agree with Mukhtar et al. (2013), who described the challenges involved in enabling data collection within PBM projects during a government-funded project [
42]. In this study, it was not possible to directly link data across existing databases before data export (i.e., to ensure that measured outcomes were directly associated with a specific surgical event). Databases were not linked due to compatibility issues and different software languages between software systems used in the relevant databases. Instead, data were retrieved from eight hospital databases, exported into an Excel spreadsheet, and then imported into a specifically designed novel Structured Query Language (SQL) database, developed to link the relevant data points. The import of data within three monthly cycles over a 2-year period allowed for extensive query analysis to ensure that potential errors were mitigated. Specific strategies were followed at each data import and linkage step (i.e., collect, connect, and clean) involving professional information technology experts. In addition, each data import step was checked by five study members against the original exported data. An additional check (data cleaning) was included within the statistical analysis. Exporting data from existing hospital databases rather than using the manual importing of data did minimise data entry errors. Extra checks were included for doubled data and outliers. Traditionally, hospitals collected data to assess the number of specific blood products transfused per admission period, units wasted, and direct transfusion-related events (for example, ABO incompatibility). These requirements are now changing. To ensure that modern PBM requirements are met in the future [
9,
32], additional data points that allow for the assessment of costs associated with clinical outcomes will require additional sophisticated data coding expertise and software solutions, including relevant funding allocation [
43,
44]. Even though an assessment of individual costs related to each adverse outcome would be ideal, this was not logistically possible. Instead, investigators evaluated the costs associated with LOS, ICU LOS, and blood products transfused while considering differences in adverse outcomes for the same patients across study groups.
The highest number of cases requiring transfusion were from the subspecialities of orthopaedics (n = 468), obstetrics and gynaecology (n = 427), general (n = 363), vascular (n = 284), and gastrointestinal surgery (n = 111) (
Table 2). The safety of ICS has improved in recent decades. Traditional contraindications, previously excluding its use for many surgical procedures, are no longer relevant. Even though these study groups were not significantly different when considering age, BMI, and comorbidities, more ICS patients were male (
Table 3). While the ICS technique is standardised at the RBWH, indications for its use are not. During procedures where infection risk and potential cancer cell contamination warrant caution, clinicians evaluate the risk–benefit balance for each case before booking ICS according to international standard best practice [
13]. For example, ICS is commonly used during radical prostatectomy for cancer at the RBWH. The investigators considered these implications within a detailed literature review and recently published as a book chapter (15 July 2022): “Roets M, Tognolini A, Dean M. Can We Overcome the Obstacles to Modern Intraoperative Cell Salvage Transfusion? A Detailed Review of Current Evidence” [
45]. For the purposes of this study, the investigators therefore included all patients receiving blood transfusion, independent of cancer and infection risks. The investigators did not assess surgical duration, estimated blood loss, or haemoglobin level (“transfusion triggers”) as outcome measures. The decision to transfuse (based on best international standard practice) currently includes these traditional measures and many other factors, transfusion triggers, ongoing blood loss, the potential for postoperative blood loss, presence of infection, presence of antiplatelet medications, patient-specific cardiovascular requirements, etc. Instead, to ensure that all these factors were considered, this study reports the clinical transfusion requirement (i.e., was transfusion required yes/no), which includes all the abovementioned factors at the time of surgery, and the volume of blood products transfused (numbers of units for ABT and volume (ml) for ICS) as outcome measures. Furthermore, this study did not only consider the cost of RBC units but also the cost of other blood products (different from traditional ICS cost studies). No patients who received RBCs while undergoing gastrointestinal, plastic, ear, nose and throat, maxillo-facial, radiation oncology, thoracic, or eye surgery received ICS. These procedures represent potential opportunities to increase ICS use. It is worth noting that those who receive transfusion extend beyond the traditional vascular and orthopaedic surgery subspecialties and therefore represent additional ICS opportunities. Not surprisingly, those who started their surgical journey with more pre-existing comorbidities and were relatively more unwell therefore experienced longer hospital stays (although this was similar across study groups). The adjusted cost difference associated with LOS between those with none (AUD 34,567) and those with ≥3 comorbidities (AUD 49,514) was AUD 14,947. The association between ABT, adverse outcomes, and LOS, despite confounding factors, was previously confirmed [
6,
14,
41]. The mean LOS was significantly longer for males, with an associated LOS cost difference of AUD 12,390. Even though LOS (and related cost) was lower following ICS, this difference was not statistically significant (unadjusted and adjusted) (
Table 4). There was, however, an increasingly significant difference in the marginal mean LOS (days, cost) for those who experienced more adverse outcomes: 7.9 days between those with none (14.9, AUD 31,803) and those with ≥3 adverse outcomes (22.8, Aud 48,752).
The potential association with significantly reduced ICU LOS following ICS was confirmed. Following adjustment, the marginal mean ICU LOS cost for ICS (AUD 10,027) represented a significant saving compared to RBCs&ICS (AUD 18,089) and RBCs (AUD 26,071). Furthermore, age, BMI, and male sex were significantly associated with increased ICU LOS, but comorbidities showed no statistical evidence of an association. ICU LOS also significantly increased for those who experienced two or more adverse outcomes. The relevant cost implications confirmed were AUD 10,400 if no adverse outcomes occurred and AUD 22,285 if ≥3 adverse outcomes occurred.
A comparison of costs related to blood product requirements is essential, considering the annual blood product cost in Australia of AUD 1.196 billion [
12]. Our study confirmed an overall perioperative blood product cost of AUD 4,791,979 including RBCs (AUD 1,100,913 excluding RBCs). Potential savings were identified following ICS, with significant reductions in blood product requirements (i.e., RBCs, pooled platelets, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate). When considering blood products other than RBCs per patient, the ICS group had the lowest average cost (AUD 48), followed by the RBCs group (AUD 533) and then the RBCs&ICS group (AUD 819). The potential to reduce RBC requirements by using ICS instead (for specific procedures) was previously confirmed [
14]. The authors of this manuscript encourage future study into the potential association between ICS and reduced blood products (other than RBCs). This study provides evidence that considers the relevant size of the related cost burden across all transfused patients.
The treatment of adverse outcomes significantly rises the cost of healthcare for patients and healthcare providers [
18,
46,
47,
48]. The proportion of patients with adverse outcomes was significantly lower following ICS at 63.5% compared to both RBCs and RBCs&ICS at 91.4% (
Table 7). A similar association was also reflected in the relatively increased LOS and ICU LOS when adjusting for adverse outcomes. Although not statistically significant, the differences in this trend across study groups may suggest a lower incidence of infection, similar to previous studies [
4]. When comparing adverse outcomes within organ-specific subcategories across groups, statistically significant differences were identified for respiratory-, cardiovascular-, and anaemia-related outcomes. Interestingly, ICS was not associated with reduced respiratory adverse outcomes; lowest in the RBCs group (20%), followed by ICS (25.2%), and then RBCs&ICS (31.4%). From a cardiovascular point of view, ICS seemed protective, as adverse outcomes were lowest in the ICS group (38.3%) compared to the RBCs (48.0%) and RBCs&ICS groups (65.7%). Renal-, cerebrovascular-, medication-, and thromboembolism-related events in our study were uncommon, and differences were not statistically significant across study groups. However, our sample size of 2129 may be too small to find significant effects in rare events (for example mortality), as previously reported following ABT [
49]. Future ICS research should not only concentrate on historical equipment and staffing costs but also consider costs avoided when adverse outcomes are prevented. Current evidence and expert opinion should guide the allocation of funding in these circumstances. ICS would never be relevant for all surgical procedures, but resource allocation toward its wider implementation would be justifiable.
There were some limitations to our study, including its retrospective data collection, single-centre design, and observational nature. Many aspects specific to ICS research considered in our study cannot be assessed through traditional multicentre RCT designs. Davies et al. (2006), after a cost-effectiveness analysis considering ICS, concluded that observational studies are required to answer some of these questions [
18]. By using observational data, this study was able to evaluate an unaltered patient cohort, where the same patients, at the same time, received the same clinical level of care, the same local indications for transfusion, and ICS procedures were standardised across all the study patients. The adverse outcomes considered in this study occur commonly today during real-life healthcare. Clinical admission criteria (surgical or anaesthetic) dictate ICU admission at the RBWH and include factors such as extreme age ranges, BMIs, and those with multiple comorbidities. Since ICU booking is predetermined, ICU admissions (yes/no) in our study are therefore independent of transfusion type, and this should be considered when interpreting the results. However, the number of days in the ICU (ICU LOS) was a valuable result. The RBCs&ICS group likely represented patients where (1) blood loss occurred suddenly (or unexpectedly) before ICS was available or (2) where lost blood volume could not be captured within the ICS process. Multitrauma surgery would be such an example, where patients experienced blood loss and received pRBCs before arrival at the theatre where ICS would be available. It is not possible to consider all potential confounding factors. The association between adverse outcomes and ABT, independent of confounding factors, has been confirmed by many investigators over the past 30 years.
Despite the retrospective nature of this study, important clinical measurements routinely collected during standard patient care were assessed, and missing data were relatively uncommon. This study included the collection of current relevant observational data with a large overall sample size (n = 2129), considered relevant confounding factors and patient characteristics, reported objectively recorded ICD-10 coded outcomes within an established exemplar ICS service, with no changes in protocol during the study period, used multivariable logistic regression models, and involved collaboration between experts in transfusion, information technology, database design, statistics, health economics, autotransfusion experts, and clinical anaesthetists.
The study design involved a retrospective observational analysis of nonrandomised data from a single centre, with the potential to be translated to a large patient population internationally. When considering the challenging nature and fast pace of many urgent procedures, inherent heterogeneity in both patient and clinical characteristics, ethical considerations, and the inability to truly blind ICS equipment, it is unlikely that an RCT design with traditional comparisons in these surgical procedures would soon be realistic. Specific cost values associated with individual adverse outcomes were not available; instead (as potentially important determinants of overall expenditure), LOS, ICU LOS, associated ICD-10 coded adverse outcomes, and blood product requirements were measured.
Future research directions should be considered. The use of database data in PBM will be essential in future to inform health policy, healthcare delivery, and implementation reform. Specific and selective biomarkers (modulated by transfusion) should be applied to future clinical outcome studies. A multicentre international trial including all potential confounding factors and surgical complexity, and powered to identify rare events, is needed to provide definitive answers. This manuscript provides the justification for such a future trial.