Skip to main content

Intraoperative phlebotomies and bleeding in liver transplantation: a historical cohort study and causal analysis

Phlébotomies et saignements peropératoires dans les cas de transplantation hépatique : une étude de cohorte historique et une analyse causale

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie volume 69, pages 438–447 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Liver transplantation is associated with major bleeding and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. No well-designed causal analysis on interventions used to reduce transfusions, such as an intraoperative phlebotomy, has been conducted in this population.

Methods

We conducted a historical cohort study among liver transplantations performed from July 2008 to January 2021 in a Canadian centre. The exposure was intraoperative phlebotomy. The outcomes were blood loss, perioperative RBC transfusions (intraoperative and up to 48 hr after surgery), intraoperative RBC transfusions, and one-year survival. We estimated marginal multiplicative factors (MFs), risk differences (RDs), and hazard ratios by inverse probability of treatment weighting both among treated patients and the whole population. Estimates are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

We included 679 patients undergoing liver transplantations of which 365 (54%) received an intraoperative phlebotomy. A phlebotomy did not reduce bleeding, transfusion risks, or mortality when estimated among the treated but reduced bleeding and transfusion risks when estimated among the whole population (MF, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.99; perioperative RD, −15.2%; 95% CI, −26.1 to −0.8; intraoperative RD, −14.7%; 95% CI, −23.2 to −2.8). In a subgroup analysis on 584 patients with end-stage liver disease, slightly larger effects were observed on both transfusion risks when estimated among the whole population while beneficial effects were observed on the intraoperative transfusion risk when estimated among the treated population.

Conclusion

The use of intraoperative phlebotomy was not consistently associated with better outcomes in all targets of inference but may improve outcomes among the whole population.

Study registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04826666); registered 1 April 2021.

Résumé

Contexte

La transplantation hépatique est associée à des saignements importants et à de multiples transfusions de globules rouges (GR). Aucune analyse causale bien conçue sur l’effet d’interventions servant à réduire les transfusions, comme une phlébotomie peropératoire, n'a été menée dans cette population.

Méthode

Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte historique incluant toutes les transplantations hépatiques réalisées dans un centre canadien de juillet 2008 à janvier 2021. L'exposition d’intérêt était une phlébotomie peropératoire. Les critères d’évaluation étaient le saignement peropératoire, les transfusions de GR périopératoires (peropératoires et jusqu'à 48 heures après la chirurgie), les transfusions de globules rouges peropératoires et la survie à un an. Des facteurs multiplicatifs (FM), des différences de risque (DR) et des rapports de risques instantanés marginaux ont été estimés en utilisant une pondération par l’inverse de la probabilité de traitement parmi les patients traités et parmi l'ensemble de la population. Les effets estimés ont été rapportés avec des intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 %.

Résultats

Nous avons inclus 679 transplantations hépatiques dont 365 (54 %) ont bénéficié d'une phlébotomie peropératoire. La phlébotomie n'a pas réduit les saignements, le risque de transfusion ou la mortalité lorsque ses effets ont été estimés parmi les patients traités, mais a réduit les risques de saignement et de transfusion lorsque ses effets ont été estimés parmi l'ensemble de la population (FM = 0,85 (IC 95 %, 0,72 à 0,99); DR périopératoire = −15,2 % (IC 95 %, −26,1 % à −0,8 %); DR peropératoire = −14,7 % (IC 95 %, −23,2 % à −2,8 %)). Dans une analyse de sous-groupe portant sur 584 patients atteints d'une hépatopathie terminale, des effets légèrement plus importants ont été observés sur les deux risques transfusionnels lorsqu’estimés dans l'ensemble de la population, tandis que des effets bénéfiques ont été observés sur le risque transfusionnel peropératoire lorsqu'estimés parmi les patients traités.

Conclusion

L'utilisation de la phlébotomie peropératoire n'a pas été systématiquement associée à de meilleurs résultats dans toutes les populations cibles, mais semble améliorer les résultats lorsque les effets sont estimés dans l'ensemble de la population.

Enregistrement de l’étude

www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04826666); enregistrée le 1er avril 2021.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ozier Y, Klinck JR. Anesthetic management of hepatic transplantation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2008; 21: 391-400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Feltracco P, Brezzi M, Barbieri S, et al. Blood loss, predictors of bleeding, transfusion practice and strategies of blood cell salvaging during liver transplantation. World J Hepatol 2013; 5: 1-15.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sabaté A, Dalmau A, Koo M, Aparicio I, Costa M, Contreras L. Coagulopathy management in liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2012; 44: 1523-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Massicotte L, Sassine MP, Lenis S, Seal RF, Roy A. Survival rate changes with transfusion of blood products during liver transplantation. Can J Anesth 2005; 52: 148-55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Boer MT, Christensen MC, Asmussen M, et al. The impact of intraoperative transfusion of platelets and red blood cells on survival after liver transplantation. Anesth Analg 2008; 106: 32-44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Murad MH, Stubbs JR, Gandhi MJ, et al. The effect of plasma transfusion on morbidity and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transfusion 2010; 50: 1370-83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rana A, Petrowsky H, Hong JC, et al. Blood transfusion requirement during liver transplantation is an important risk factor for mortality. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 216: 902-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldaracena N, Méndez P, Quiñonez E, et al. Liver transplantation without perioperative transfusions single-center experience showing better early outcome and shorter hospital stay. J Transplant 2013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/649209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Real C, Sobreira Fernandes D, Sá Couto P, et al. Survival predictors in liver transplantation: time-varying effect of red blood cell transfusion. Transplant Proc 2016; 48: 3303-6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Massicotte L, Carrier FM, Karakiewicz P, et al. Impact of MELD score-based organ allocation on mortality, bleeding, and transfusion in liver transplantation: a before-and-after observational cohort study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2019; 33: 2719-25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shehata N, Mistry N, da Costa BR, et al. Restrictive compared with liberal red cell transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 1081-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zuckerman J, Coburn N, Callum J, et al. Association of perioperative red blood cell transfusions with all-cause and cancer-specific death in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer: long-term outcomes from a population-based cohort. Surgery 2021; 170: 870-9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bezinover D, Dirkmann D, Findlay J, et al. Perioperative coagulation management in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 2018; 102: 578-92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Taura P, Martinez-Palli G, Blasi A, Rivas E, Beltran J, Balust J. Intraoperative management of high-risk liver transplant recipients: concerns and challenges. Transplant Proc 2016; 48: 2491-4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Molenaar IQ, Warnaar N, Groen H, TenVergert EM, Slooff MJ, Porte RJ. Efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytic drugs in liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 185-94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Massicotte L, Lenis S, Thibeault L, Sassine MP, Seal RF, Roy A. Reduction of blood product transfusions during liver transplantation. Can J Anesth 2005; 52: 545-6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Massicotte L, Lenis S, Thibeault L, Sassine MP, Seal RF, Roy A. Effect of low central venous pressure and phlebotomy on blood product transfusion requirements during liver transplantations. Liver Transpl 2006; 12: 117-23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Massicotte L, Perrault MA, Denault AY, et al. Effects of phlebotomy and phenylephrine infusion on portal venous pressure and systemic hemodynamics during liver transplantation. Transplantation 2010; 89: 920-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Martel G, Baker L, Wherrett C, et al. Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolaemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-1): a pilot randomized clinical trial for feasibility. Br J Surg 2020; 107: 812-23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Al Khaldi M, Gryspeerdt F, Carrier FM, et al. Effect of intraoperative hypovolemic phlebotomy on transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Can J Anesth 2021; 68: 980-90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mukhtar A, Lotfy A, Hussein A, Fouad E. Splanchnic and systemic circulation cross talks: implication for hemodynamic management of liver transplant recipient. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2020; 34: 109-18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Massicotte L, Carrier FM, Denault AY, et al. Development of a predictive model for blood transfusions and bleeding during liver transplantation: an observational cohort study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2018; 32: 1722-30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Massicotte L, Capitanio U, Beaulieu D, Roy JD, Roy A, Karakiewicz PI. Independent validation of a model predicting the need for packed red blood cell transfusion at liver transplantation. Transplantation 2009; 88: 386-91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Carrier FM, Sylvestre MP, Massicotte L, Bilodeau M, Chassé M. Effects of intraoperative hemodynamic management on postoperative acute kidney injury in liver transplantation: an observational cohort study. PLoS One 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Carrier FM, Chassé M, Wang HT, et al. Restrictive fluid management strategies and outcomes in liver transplantation: a systematic review. Can J Anesth 2020; 67: 109-27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 2011; 46: 399-424.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shrier I, Redelmeier A, Schnitzer ME, Steele RJ. Challenges in interpreting results from ‘multiple regression’ when there is interaction between covariates. BMJ Evid Based Med 2021; 26: 53-6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rubin DB. For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Ann Appl Stat 2008; 2: 808-40.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Carrier FM, Chassé M, Sylvestre MP, et al. Effects of intraoperative fluid balance during liver transplantation on postoperative acute kidney injury: an observational cohort study. Transplantation 2020; 104: 1419-28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Larivière J, Giard JM, Zuo RM, Massicotte L, Chassé M, Carrier FM. Association between intraoperative fluid balance, vasopressors and graft complications in liver transplantation: a cohort study. PLoS One 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254455.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, et al. Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 247-54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344-9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Naimi AI. Obtaining actionable inferences from epidemiologic actions. Epidemiology 2019; 30: 243-5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference: What If, 1st Edition. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tran A, Heuser J, Ramsay T, McIsaac DI, Martel G. Techniques for blood loss estimation in major non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anesth 2021; 68: 245-55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ashworth A, Klein AA. Cell salvage as part of a blood conservation strategy in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2010; 105: 401-16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sabaté A, Dalmau A. Fibrinogen: a clinical update on liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 2015; 47: 2925-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology 2001; 33: 464-70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Feng ZY, Xu X, Zhu SM, Bein B, Zheng SS. Effects of low central venous pressure during preanhepatic phase on blood loss and liver and renal function in liver transplantation. World J Surg 2010; 34: 1864-73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim JH. Should low central venous pressure be maintained during liver transplantation? Open Anesthesiol J 2017; 11: 17-28.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Imbens GW. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Rev Econ Stat 2004; 86: 4-29.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Desai RJ, Franklin JM. Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners. BMJ 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Barrera-Gómez J, Basagaña X. Models with transformed variables: interpretation and software. Epidemiology 2015; 26: e16-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University. Applied Nonparametric Bootstrap with Hierarchical and Correlated Data. Vanderbilt Biostatistics Wiki. Available from URL: https://biostat.app.vumc.org/wiki/Main/HowToBootstrapCorrelatedData (accessed November 2021).

  45. Parikh A, Washburn KW, Matsuoka L, et al. A multicenter study of 30 days complications after deceased donor liver transplantation in the model for end-stage liver disease score era. Liver Transpl 2015; 21: 1160-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies. Stat Med 2010; 29: 2137-48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Lash TL, VanderWeele TJ, Haneuse S, Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology, Fourth Edition. Wolters Kluwer; 2021.

Download references

Author contributions

François Martin Carrier participated in research design, research performance, data acquisition, data analysis, and writing the manuscript. Steve Ferreira Guerra participated in research design, data analysis, and writing the manuscript. Janie Coulombe participated in research design, data analysis, and writing the manuscript. Éva Amzallag and Luc Massicotte participated in data acquisition and writing the manuscript. Michaël Chassé and Helen Trottier participated in data analysis and writing the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ms. Claudia Bouchard who helped collect transfusion data, Dr. Cédric Zaouter for his insights regarding the manuscript, and all anesthesiologists from the CHUM who contributed to data collection over the years. Finally, we would like to thank reviewers from the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie who conducted very careful and diligent reviews that improved the manuscript.

Disclosures

None.

Funding statement

This work was funded by the Centre de recherche du CHUM. Dr Chassé and Dr Carrier are recipients of a Career Award from the Fonds de la Recherche du Québec – Santé.

Editorial responsibility

This submission was handled by Dr. Philip M. Jones, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie.

Data availability statement

Due to national regulations in the Province of Quebec (Canada), health medical data cannot be made available publicly. Nevertheless, complete access to the research data set is possible for research purposes after appropriate privacy agreements between research parties have been made. Data access requests may be sent to the corresponding author (francois.martin.carrier@umontreal.ca), or directly to the CHUM REB (ethique.recherche.chum@ssss.gouv.qc.ca). The R code will be available upon request to the corresponding author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carrefour de l’innovation et santé des populations, Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900, rue St-Denis, porte S03-434, Montréal, QC, Canada

    François Martin Carrier MD, MSc, Éva Amzallag MSc & Michaël Chassé MD, PhD

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

    François Martin Carrier MD, MSc & Luc Massicotte MD

  3. Critical Care Division, Department of Medicine, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

    François Martin Carrier MD, MSc & Michaël Chassé MD, PhD

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Steve Ferreira Guerra MSc & Janie Coulombe PhD

  5. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université de Montréal, Sainte-Justine University Hospital Center, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Helen Trottier PhD

Authors
  1. François Martin Carrier MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Ferreira Guerra MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janie Coulombe PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Éva Amzallag MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luc Massicotte MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michaël Chassé MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Helen Trottier PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François Martin Carrier MD, MSc.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is accompanied by an editorial. Please see Can J Anesth 2022; this issue.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 589 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carrier, F.M., Ferreira Guerra, S., Coulombe, J. et al. Intraoperative phlebotomies and bleeding in liver transplantation: a historical cohort study and causal analysis. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 69, 438–447 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-022-02197-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-022-02197-1

Keywords

  • liver transplantation
  • bleeding
  • red blood cell transfusion
  • phlebotomy
  • causal inference