• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Once again, you're deliberately misrepresenting me. The lie you told was that you didn't change your position, despite earlier answering "yes" to my question "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?".

I gave you plenty of chances to deny that you intentionally lied and instead admit that your answer was in error. Instead, you just continued to assert that no difference in opinion was made, and continued to completely ignore or even correct your previous answer. I don't think it's unfair to at least expect you to say "I mistyped" or "I misunderstood the question" or "I just made a mistake - obviously my answer should have been 'no'". But you didn't, and I simply don't understand why you're being so stubborn about it. It's an easy mistake to make and an even easier mistake to correct.


Earlier, you stated:

"I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!"

So, given that you're willing to cast doubt on the honesty of other posters here and their personal accounts, what possible reason could I have to accept yours? Are you the only person here who we should assume is completely honest?


And yet you honestly believe transfusions are not an often necessary medical procedure? I'm sorry, but I have not one single reason to take your medical expertise seriously, especially considering your obviously very emotionally manipulative earlier post. There were no facts in that post, just rhetoric and awful, emotional manipulation designed to make people feel insecure about a perfectly safe medical procedure and emotionally blackmail them into cow-towing to your religious beliefs.

I find it just as reprehensible a vaccine denial. It is deplorable.
"I find that deplorable" "You are a blatant liar" "You are emotionally manipulative" "You practice emotional blackmail" I present a mountain of evidence and you keep up with the exaggerated speech! "I find that deplorable" you say! Since when are YOU the authority? "I find" this! "I find" that! That is YOU! Who are you? It isn't all about YOU and your world view, your perspective, your feelings and opinions, your interpretations! You finding something deplorable does not mean that it is deplorable! It simply means that YOU think so
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I
I don't care if YOU believe I have medical background! You can urge caution about claims, but you can not ridicule claims of others! Unless of course I were to say that I won spelling bees in school, and then mispell werds lotsa tymes, thin yew would half a gud case!
Heh, you get props for that.

You can reserve judgment of claims on here, but without evidence you cannot MAKE judgments! The fact that you are so quick to make judgments without evidence, makes me think you apply the same standards to the issue of blood transfusions!
Where have I made a judgement without evidence?

I actually was very upfront about what I know about medicine! If I wanted to lie, I would tell people that I was a nurse, doctor, etc!
The fact that you weren't willing to tell a HUGE lie does not rule out the possibility that you are at least exaggerating.

Here is what I said: I took a medical transcription course: I did not use it to get a job though! I admitted this!

I independently studied some medical books for ten or so years! I also said that my job at the hospital had nothing to do with anything clinical! So if I was just trying to make a case for myself, I wouldn't have included that fact!
I just think you're clearly overreacting now. It's really quite a simple observation: you cast doubt on the accounts of people that made claims you didn't agree with, and yet you seem to violently reject any doubt thrown on you. Do you not see any hypocrisy in this?

What I didn't say was that I am a housekeeper! Thought you would make an ad hominen attack, which you likely now will! Why would I share that if I am overexaggerating myself!
Speaking of not passing judgement without evidence, you have no basis on which to say that I would ever use an ad hominem attack on you. I have not done so so far. The worst I have done was accuse you of lying because you made conflicting statements. Please don't make assumptions about me beyond what my words necessarily indicate.

Being a housekeeper of course, doesn't discredit me! Two housekeepers in my department and they both used to be school teachers! Would that discredit them from having opinions on history, science, etc
No, it wouldn't. And I never said it would. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits.

I studied Medical Transcription through a mail correspondence course, when I was 30, and am now 50! I got straight A's and it was an accredited course! I quit midway through because I didn't have a computer at the time, didn't even know anything about computers! But on my own, I continued to study medical terminology and some anatomy! Also read about diseases! Took a secretarial course through the mail also, that I did complete with straight A's, didn't do anything with that and still clean for a living! Cleaning in a hospital of course, is different than cleaning in a hotel! We take classes every year and have some knowledge to avoid contamination of our surroundings! I have gotten free medical books that doctors have thrown out here and read them! I am able to ask doctor and nurse friends questions some times!
Thank you for the information.

And have read books about blood, the Red Cross, articles, and so on! Whether you discredit me and what I have said I did is inconsequential to me!
So, you don't care whether or not your claims are true?

You can not go any further than simply "wondering" if I am being truthful! To make a snap judgment would to show that is how you think in a general sense! That would leave me wondering if you also make snap judgments about the issue of transfusion
I never made a snap judgement. I did nothing more or nothing less than what you have done multiple times: cast doubt on the testimonies of those who don't agree with you. If you're reacting so violently to me questioning and doubting you, do you not see how hypocritical it is for you to do it to others?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Again with the "blatant lie" accusation! I said that people are influenced by the way that they are raised! I said other things influence them also! I said that at the age of 11 I began believing as a JW and haven't change since then other than believing in Jehovah MORE than I did at 11, because my beliefs have been confirmed as I age! I have no idea what you think I lied about! Wow are you unfair!
I'll make it simple:

When I asked you ""Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?", was your initial answer "yes" or "no"?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
"The lie that you told was that you didn't change your position" How is that a lie? From age 11 to now, I have NOT changed my position! How Is That A Lie??!
Again, misrepresentation. I didn't say you lied about changing your position when you grew up. I said you lied about changing your position with regards to the question I asked, which was "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?". Initially, you answered "yes".

Please try to focus and recall this very simple exchange. You need to stop going off on tangents and distracting from the very simple thing I am addressing.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I do admit to an error! I admit YOU made an error! You saw something that I said and THINK it contradicts when it doesn't!
It's really beginning to seem like your ego is more important to you than what words you actually write. Do you not understand that answering YES to the question "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?", is in direct contradiction to your later statements where you admit that upbringing CAN influence someone's decisions later in life?

Do you use this thinking about the Bible too, and claim it contradicts itself, when it doesn't? If I were to say: "I went to Julie's party on Friday" and also said: "I went to Sarah's party on Friday" use your mind and think of ways that that doesn't contradict! Extend your mind and think about it, instead of deciding that I may be a "blatant liar" Maybe I went to BOTH! Maybe I went to one on Friday the 13th and the other the NEXT Friday! Your failure to figure something out, does not make everyone else the liar, it makes you not very deep thinking! I might not want to take advice on transfusions from somebody who doesn't think deeply
This is all just ranting and raving for no benefit. Please calm down and look carefully at the above paragraph and the questions I have asked you in the previous posts. I'm very keen to draw a line under this and simply say "You misunderstood the question and/or mistyped when you said 'yes' to it" in order for both of us to just move on, but it is still troubling to me that you lack the ability to admit you said something that I can easily demonstrate that you did.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You say a few things: You claim that I am trying to cast doubts on the honesty of posters on here" Now who is lying? I said caution is necessary, but we cannot know that people are lying! I never once "cast doubt" I said "reserve judgment"
No, let's look at what you said again:

"I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!"

Please note that you specifically single out stories about transfusions saving lives - i.e: stories which are potentially detrimental to your argument - and said it is worth being skeptical about them specifically. Whether or not you cushion this with "of course, we should be skeptical of all claims" doesn't change the fact that you deliberately singled out a particular thing for people to direct skepticisim towards. What skepticism have you exercised towards the video in the OP, for example?

You accuse me of "emotional manipulation" and "emotional blackmail" I asked someone if she was had a doctor tell her she needed a transfusion in the future, if she would keep the same strong attitude she is showing here, or actually think it out! Since the facts have borne out that MOST transfusions are more harmful than good and overused, how is that emotional manipulation? Links posted here to articles show what I say is true! It is you who is "manipulating" my words!
Could you please present these articles, as I have already debunked the video in the OP.

"perfectly safe medical procedure" You said that! I invite anyone reading this now, to google transfusions online and mixed opinions will come up, some saying they are relatively safe, others that they aren't!
Opinions are irrelevant. Facts aren't. And the facts say that the chance of dying or becoming infected from a blood transfusion are extremely low. In fact, bloodless surgery carries a higher overall mortality rate:

Are transfusions overrated? Surgical outcome of Jehovah's Witnesses. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf

In other words, you are risking more by avoiding transfusions than you would be by accepting them.

But not one article will say that they are a "perfectly safe medical procedure" Now who is lying and manipulating?
I just gave you the statistics. Death by transfusion complication occur at a rate of 0.0008%, and they have a significantly lower infection rate. There are hundreds of medical procedures which have a much higher death and infection rate.

Sixty six percent of transfusions are administered wrongly, according to data!
What data is this, because if you're referencing the video, that is incorrect.

40 to 60 % do MORE harm than good!
Please present this data.

It is an institutional habit, not well regulated! If it were a medicine it would not get past the FDA!
You are not suited to judge that.

Blood is unique and even if it the types match, chromosomal differences, gender differences, etc, make it unsafe!
Where are your fact?

A Nobel prize winning doctor said he would never get a transfusion because blood is so unique it can be compared to a fingerprint!
Facts, not opinions, please.

All of what I am saying is just words that at the moment could be said are my own claims! I am not supplying sources, although links people have already supplied here support much of it! However if there is any fair minded person reading this, by all minds research it on your own and it will be backed up! I will even help you locate the articles and sources, but I am not going to do that for my accuser here, because that one keeps ignoring all I am saying!
I have not "ignored" all that you are saying.

If someone else wants me to provide sources and I discern that they are actually honest enough to consider it, I will be happy to
Then please do.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Ah...I have a problem with deciding that 'because it's the law,' it is therefore moral and decided. Laws have been passed that are absolutely wrong, and have later been altered or removed because people who knew that held their ground. Laws are not physical laws of nature, after all, so anybody who counters an argument with 'because it's the law,' is begging the question...is that law appropriate and just? Should it BE a law?

Remember Rosa Parks?

My problem with this is that I am really torn over this issue.

I THINK, however, that the situations need to be decided individually, and according to slightly different criteria than whether we think the beliefs behind the actions are silly.

For instance, in the case of a JW family who wants to withold blood products from a child...if the choice is 'blood transfusion or die," rather than 'there are alternatives to blood available and they might work but we think blood is better," then blood transfusion it should be. That is, if the child isn't old enough to understand the problem or know what's going on. However, as has been pointed out, that doesn't happen much any more because of available alternatives. It does happen, and when it does, I hope that the parents and their religion...and their version of the God they believe in...doesn't blame the CHILD for it.

I've also written about this problem with people who don't vaccinate their children. Perhaps I'm a wee bit selfish about that one, though.

I do think that laws that target religious beliefs are a problem, though, if those religious beliefs do not cause actual harm to those who don't volunteer freely, with mature consent, and lives are not lost.
Yes I think I can agree with all that, thanks for sharing.:)
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
"I find that deplorable" "You are a blatant liar" "You are emotionally manipulative" "You practice emotional blackmail" I present a mountain of evidence and you keep up with the exaggerated speech!
Look carefully at your on words. I never exaggerated - you used emotional manipulation and emotional blackmail to try and persuade people. Look right here, particularly the parts I have emphasized in bold:

"One thing I really think you should consider: If you have to get surgery soon, and when you go there you are told that the doctor is going to give you blood, will you be so intent on being right, that you go along with it, even though we have shown you the risks, and that they are usually more harmful than good? Will pride make you risk your health? And if you do have a reaction to the blood, will you still feel this strongly? I know your step dad mistreated women, and said that his brother had brain damage, which you don't even know is exactly how it happened, but will that make you put your own health at risk because of feelings left over from how he treated you and your mom?"

If you don't understand how that is emotionally manipulative, empty rhetoric, then I really don't know what you think it is. I also find it ironic that you accuse people who accept transfusions as "risking their health" for their "pride", when bloodless surgery carries health risks as well - and in many case carries GREATER risks.

"I find that deplorable" you say! Since when are YOU the authority?
What? Since when do you have to be an authority in order to have an opinion? It IS deplorable to bring up the domestic abuse a person suffered in order to manipulate them into accepting your point of view.

"I find" this! "I find" that! That is YOU! Who are you? It isn't all about YOU and your world view, your perspective, your feelings and opinions, your interpretations! You finding something deplorable does not mean that it is deplorable! It simply means that YOU think so
Obviously. And do you apply this same logic to your position on transfusions? After all, it's just what YOU think.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
No, let's look at what you said again:

"I always like to point out, that when people have these stories about the blood transfusions that saved their life, etc, this is the internet and we don't know how much is fact and how much is fiction!"

Please note that you specifically single out stories about transfusions saving lives - i.e: stories which are potentially detrimental to your argument - and said it is worth being skeptical about them specifically. Whether or not you cushion this with "of course, we should be skeptical of all claims" doesn't change the fact that you deliberately singled out a particular thing for people to direct skepticisim towards. What skepticism have you exercised towards the video in the OP, for example?


Could you please present these articles, as I have already debunked the video in the OP.


Opinions are irrelevant. Facts aren't. And the facts say that the chance of dying or becoming infected from a blood transfusion are extremely low. In fact, bloodless surgery carries a higher overall mortality rate:

Are transfusions overrated? Surgical outcome of Jehovah's Witnesses. - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.krev.info/library/pocetumrti.pdf

In other words, you are risking more by avoiding transfusions than you would be by accepting them.


I just gave you the statistics. Death by transfusion complication occur at a rate of 0.0008%, and they have a significantly lower infection rate. There are hundreds of medical procedures which have a much higher death and infection rate.


What data is this, because if you're referencing the video, that is incorrect.


Please present this data.


You are not suited to judge that.


Where are your fact?


Facts, not opinions, please.


I have not "ignored" all that you are saying.


Then please do.
NO, I thought I made it clear to you that I will not produce data for you! I said very clearly, that anyone who wants to research my claims, all they have to do is tap a few words into keyboard and voila, scads of info will come up! Further, I said that I would be glad to find the information if anyone asked me too-EXCEPT FOR YOU! You come to my comments here and keep calling me a liar and you are not listening to anything I say so I will not do any homework for you! It is IMPOSSIBLE to get you to consider anything, and I will not do anything anymore to prove anything to you! That said, if anyone else questions the statistics that I quoted, I will be happy to find the source! Provided you are nice to me, and provided that you act fairly!
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
blished in the August 2009 issue of Today’s Hospitalist

EVERY YEAR IN THE U.S., more than 14 million units of blood are transfused. That breaks down to 40,000 units every day.

But findings from a new consensus conference and observational study maintain that between 40% and 60% of red-cell transfusions are probably unnecessary. That’s because those transfusions are going to stable, nonhemorrhaging patients, very few of whom derive any actual benefit from the procedure, according to the study’s authors. Instead, the majority of clinical scenarios in which patients are transfused can lead to negative outcomes including a higher risk of lung injury, stroke, heart attack, kidney failure, infection or death.

Findings were first presented at a Society for the Advancement of Blood Management meeting this spring. Aryeh Shander, MD, one of the investigators and an anesthesiologist and critical care specialist at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in Englewood, N.J., has long advocated for appropriate transfusion practice as a major cornerstone of promoting patient safety.

Dr. Shander says he hopes these latest findings will help hospitalists make more informed decisions at the bedside, rather than having transfusions continue to be what he calls a “default procedure” in hospitals.

“The preponderance of data linking transfusions to poorer outcomes should make conservative transfusion practice the norm,” Dr. Shander says, “not something that needs to be defended or explained.” He spoke to Today’s Hospitalist about changing physicians’ approach to ordering transfusions.

Why has ordering transfusions become the default position?

Partly, it’s because transfusions are so easy. But blood is an organ, and when we transfuse patients, we’re actually performing a small transplant. There is no other tissue that you can transplant by just writing an order.

Ordering a transfusion is much easier than, say, trying to figure out the cause and treating a patient’s anemia. Transfusion ends up having very little to do with a patient, but a lot to do with the ease of administration.

What are the current guidelines?

They haven’t really changed since 1988 and the first NIH consensus conference. Over the years, guidelines have become more restrictive in terms of using all blood products, which is an improvement. Hopefully, guidelines will be updated to reflect evidence that has come to light since they were first produced.

Your study looked at 450 different clinical scenarios among patients without active hemorrhage or trauma and found transfusion benefit in only 12%. Who are the patients who benefit?

Those were mostly patients with chronic hematologic diseases that require repeated transfusions, such as myelodysplastic syndrome, sickle cell disease or thalassemia. The benefits of transfusion outweigh the risks in patients who cannot make their own red cells because of bone marrow diseases.

Much of the recent debate about transfusions is over the right hemoglobin level trigger and whether physicians should use a liberal vs. restrictive trigger strategy. Do you advocate getting away from the notion of transfusion triggers altogether?

Ours is the first study to look at transfusion in terms of patient outcomes, rather than at just a trigger. Transfusion should be and is a complex decision, not a response to a number.

Patients’ tolerance of anemia and the effects of anemia on them are as individual as fingerprints. Using a transfusion trigger without having a clear, evidence-based expectation of benefit confers only risk to patients.

Hospitalists say they order more transfusions than orthopedists as a way to improve function in anemic patients. How should they approach patients with anemia?

Many patients who have anemia get ignored. They’re never screened for anemia at their doctor’s office, or they get admitted to the hospital and discharged without having their anemia addressed, which we don’t do for other diseases. When symptoms occur, you need to diagnose and treat anemia as soon and as appropriately as possible.

For anemia caused by nutritional deficiency, therapies include iron, B12, folate or erythropoietin [EPO], treating the anemia through nutrition or pharmaceuticals. You also need to make sure there is no underlying bleeding tendency or disease, like colon cancer, that is causing the anemia. And sometimes patients who have anemia are hypovolemic, so we need to replenish their volume so that

 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
blished in the August 2009 issue of Today’s Hospitalist

EVERY YEAR IN THE U.S., more than 14 million units of blood are transfused. That breaks down to 40,000 units every day.

But findings from a new consensus conference and observational study maintain that between 40% and 60% of red-cell transfusions are probably unnecessary. That’s because those transfusions are going to stable, nonhemorrhaging patients, very few of whom derive any actual benefit from the procedure, according to the study’s authors. Instead, the majority of clinical scenarios in which patients are transfused can lead to negative outcomes including a higher risk of lung injury, stroke, heart attack, kidney failure, infection or death.

Findings were first presented at a Society for the Advancement of Blood Management meeting this spring. Aryeh Shander, MD, one of the investigators and an anesthesiologist and critical care specialist at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in Englewood, N.J., has long advocated for appropriate transfusion practice as a major cornerstone of promoting patient safety.

Dr. Shander says he hopes these latest findings will help hospitalists make more informed decisions at the bedside, rather than having transfusions continue to be what he calls a “default procedure” in hospitals.

“The preponderance of data linking transfusions to poorer outcomes should make conservative transfusion practice the norm,” Dr. Shander says, “not something that needs to be defended or explained.” He spoke to Today’s Hospitalist about changing physicians’ approach to ordering transfusions.

Why has ordering transfusions become the default position?

Partly, it’s because transfusions are so easy. But blood is an organ, and when we transfuse patients, we’re actually performing a small transplant. There is no other tissue that you can transplant by just writing an order.

Ordering a transfusion is much easier than, say, trying to figure out the cause and treating a patient’s anemia. Transfusion ends up having very little to do with a patient, but a lot to do with the ease of administration.

What are the current guidelines?

They haven’t really changed since 1988 and the first NIH consensus conference. Over the years, guidelines have become more restrictive in terms of using all blood products, which is an improvement. Hopefully, guidelines will be updated to reflect evidence that has come to light since they were first produced.

Your study looked at 450 different clinical scenarios among patients without active hemorrhage or trauma and found transfusion benefit in only 12%. Who are the patients who benefit?

Those were mostly patients with chronic hematologic diseases that require repeated transfusions, such as myelodysplastic syndrome, sickle cell disease or thalassemia. The benefits of transfusion outweigh the risks in patients who cannot make their own red cells because of bone marrow diseases.

Much of the recent debate about transfusions is over the right hemoglobin level trigger and whether physicians should use a liberal vs. restrictive trigger strategy. Do you advocate getting away from the notion of transfusion triggers altogether?

Ours is the first study to look at transfusion in terms of patient outcomes, rather than at just a trigger. Transfusion should be and is a complex decision, not a response to a number.

Patients’ tolerance of anemia and the effects of anemia on them are as individual as fingerprints. Using a transfusion trigger without having a clear, evidence-based expectation of benefit confers only risk to patients.

Hospitalists say they order more transfusions than orthopedists as a way to improve function in anemic patients. How should they approach patients with anemia?

Many patients who have anemia get ignored. They’re never screened for anemia at their doctor’s office, or they get admitted to the hospital and discharged without having their anemia addressed, which we don’t do for other diseases. When symptoms occur, you need to diagnose and treat anemia as soon and as appropriately as possible.

For anemia caused by nutritional deficiency, therapies include iron, B12, folate or erythropoietin [EPO], treating the anemia through nutrition or pharmaceuticals. You also need to make sure there is no underlying bleeding tendency or disease, like colon cancer, that is causing the anemia. And sometimes patients who have anemia are hypovolemic, so we need to replenish their volume so that symptoms such as dizziness will go away.

Transfusion needs to be reserved for people who are severely and acutely ill. Anemia is a whole area where detection, diagnosis and treatment do not have widespread acceptance within the medical community.

What about dealing with patients or families who also see transfusions as a quick fix for anemia?

Just like for everything else, physicians need to describe the options for therapy. In its recommendations and contraindications for transfusion, the FDA says that if there is ample time and if patients’ clinical condition permits, patients should be appropriately treated, and that transfusion should be a last resort.

You advocate the use of EPO, which has received a black box warning, particularly for cancer patients. Do you now use EPO more conservatively?

I think the studies that resulted in the black boxing of erythropoietin were not well-designed. And the warning in terms of recurrence within the cancer population had more to do with accelerated dosing, not the conventional dosing that we normally use. As for clot risk with the drug, that can be obviated with what today is the standard of care, which is anticoagulation drugs. I think the ratio of benefit to risk with erythropoietin still remains extremely high, even for many cancer patients.

Has the evidence reached a tipping point where physicians are questioning transfusion practices?

I wish that were the case, but I think it’s going to take another generation before we see widespread adoption within medicine of appropriate transfusion practice. But there is no question that it’s getting there.

Edward Doyle is Editor of Today’s Hospitalist.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
NO, I thought I made it clear to you that I will not produce data for you!
Why not?

I said very clearly, that anyone who wants to research my claims, all they have to do is tap a few words into keyboard and voila, scads of info will come up!
I can also type "proof of bigfoot" into google and lots of info would come up. I'm asking what info specifically supports your claims.

Further, I said that I would be glad to find the information if anyone asked me too-EXCEPT FOR YOU!
And I thought that was a silly thing to say, because it would take no more effort to provide them for me than for anyone else.

You come to my comments here and keep calling me a liar and you are not listening to anything I say so I will not do any homework for you!
I listened intently to what you said, which is why I noticed the inconsistancy in your statements.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get you to consider anything, and I will not do anything anymore to prove anything to you!
This is nothing more than a baselss, close-minded assertion. Merely because I am challenging you, you consider me to be impossible to reason with. I am actually extremely reasonable, which is why I researched the video in the OP before concluding anything about it, and why I asked you lots of questions before presuming your position on various subjects. Apparently you are unable or unwilling to extend to me the same level of consideration.

That said, if anyone else questions the statistics that I quoted, I will be happy to find the source! Provided you are nice to me, and provided that you act fairly!
And since you are, apparently, the sole decided of what counts as "fair" and "nice", I doubt you will be providing anyone with any sources.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member

Blood Transfusions Still Overused and May Do More Harm Than Good in Some Patients
Johns Hopkins study shows wide variation in transfusion use in operating rooms
Release Date: April 24, 2012
Citing the lack of clear guidelines for ordering blood transfusions during surgery, Johns Hopkins researchers say a new study confirms there is still wide variation in the use of transfusions and frequent use of transfused blood in patients who don’t need it.

The resulting overuse of blood is problematic, the researchers say, because blood is a scarce and expensive resource and because recent studies have shown that surgical patients do no better, and may do worse, if given transfusions prematurely or unnecessarily. “Transfusion is not as safe as people think,” says Steven M. Frank, M.D., leader of the study described in the journal Anesthesiology.

“Over the past five years, studies have supported giving less blood than we used to, and our research shows that practitioners have not caught up,” says Frank, an associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “Blood conservation is one of the few areas in medicine where outcomes can be improved, risk reduced and costs saved all at the same time. Nothing says it’s better to give a patient more blood than is needed.”

The exceptions, Frank says, are cases of trauma, hemorrhage or both, where infusing blood quickly can be lifesaving.

General guidelines from three different medical societies govern when a surgical patient should get blood, but they tend to be vague, Frank says. In a healthy adult, a normal hemoglobin level — the quantity of red blood cells carrying oxygen through the body — is roughly 14 grams per deciliter. The guidelines state that when a patient’s hemoglobin level falls below six or seven grams per deciliter, a patient will benefit from a transfusion, and that if the levels are above 10, a patient does not need a transfusion. But when blood levels are in-between, there has been little consensus about what to do.

The recent studies, Frank says, suggest that physicians can safely wait until hemoglobin levels fall to seven or eight before transfusing, even in some of the sickest patients.

A Department of Health and Human Services committee complained last year of “both excessive and inappropriate use of blood transfusions in the U.S.,” noted that “blood transfusion carries significant risk that may outweigh its benefits in some settings,” and stated that misuse adds unnecessary costs.

For the new study, Frank and his colleagues examined the electronic anesthesia records of more than 48,000 surgical patients at The Johns Hopkins Hospital over the 18 months from February 2010 to August 2011. Overall, 2,981 patients (6.2 percent) were given blood transfusions during surgery. The researchers found wide variation among surgeons and among anesthesiologists, compared to their peers, and how quickly they order blood.

For example, patients undergoing cardiac surgeries received blood at much lower trigger points compared to patients having other surgeries. Patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer, orthopedic problems and aortic aneurysms, on the other hand, received blood at higher trigger points, often at or above 10 grams per deciliter. The amount of blood transfused, Frank says, did not clearly correlate with how sick the patients were or with how much blood is typically lost during specific types of surgery. Blood is lost during many operations, though hemoglobin levels don’t often fall to the point where blood transfusion is necessary, he says.

Blood transfusion, which introduces a foreign substance “transplant” into the body, initiates a series of complex immune reactions. Patients often develop antibodies to transfused red blood cells making it more difficult to find a match if future transfusions are needed. Transfused blood also has a suppressive effect on the immune system, which increases the risk of infections, including pneumonia and sepsis, he says. Frank also cites a study showing a 42 percent increased risk of cancer recurrence in patients having cancer surgery who received transfusions.

Blood is in short supply and pricey, says Frank. It costs $278 dollars to buy a unit of blood from the American Red Cross, for example, and as much as $1,100 for the nonprofit to acquire, test, store and transport. Medicare pays just $180 for that unit of blood.

The decision about when to give a blood transfusion during surgery is made jointly by the surgeon and the anesthesiologist, but it is the responsibility of the anesthesiologist to administer the blood, Frank says. The surgeon and the anesthesiologist may have different opinions about when a transfusion is necessary. Discussions about transfusion trigger points would ideally be made before surgery, since it is too late to be making decisions when the surgery is under way, he says.

Frank’s research at Johns Hopkins produced a list of blood use and trigger points for each individual surgeon and anesthesiologist. Frank recently told the Hopkins surgeon who uses blood most often that he held that distinction and explained the reasons he might want to wait until hemoglobin levels are lower before ordering a transfusion. In the two months before their conversation, 30 percent of that surgeon’s patients got blood transfusions. In the two months after, only 18 percent did.

After Frank presented his research to Johns Hopkins’ Department of Surgery, the director told the surgeons assembled that although most of them were trained to transfuse when hemoglobin levels fall below 10, transitioning to a trigger of seven or eight made sense.

“A lot of our practices are just handed down through the generations,” Frank says.

Although Frank’s study focuses only on one hospital, he says the lack of consistent guidelines for ordering blood puts patients at risk all over the country.

Coming up with an exact algorithm for the timing of blood transfusion is impossible, as each situation and each individual surgery is different. But Frank believes what is best for patients is to strive to transfuse less whenever possible.

Other Johns Hopkins researchers involved in the study include Will J. Savage, M.D.; Jim A. Rothschild, M.D.; Richard J. Rivers, M.D.; Paul M. Ness, M.D.; Sharon L. Paul, B.S., M.S.; and John A. Ulatowski, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A.


For the Media
Media Contact: Stephanie Desmon
410-955-8665; [email protected]

Find Physicians Specializing In...
Useful Links
Show me more...
I want to...
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member

Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Bad Blood: Crisis in the American Red Cross
by Judith Reitman, Judith Pertman
3.66 · Rating Details · 35 Ratings · 5 Reviews
Investigative journalist Judith Reitman delivers the never-before-told story of the American Red Cross's fall from grace -- an incredible account of gross mismanagement and shocking neglect. From the Red Cross's decision in 1983 not to use an HIV-screening test, to May 1993 when the FDA brought an unprecedented lawsuit against the organization and its president for thousan ...more
Paperback, 351 pages
Published May 1st 1998 by Pinnacle (first published October 1st 1996)
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
blished in the August 2009 issue of Today’s Hospitalist

EVERY YEAR IN THE U.S., more than 14 million units of blood are transfused. That breaks down to 40,000 units every day.

But findings from a new consensus conference and observational study maintain that between 40% and 60% of red-cell transfusions are probably unnecessary. That’s because those transfusions are going to stable, nonhemorrhaging patients, very few of whom derive any actual benefit from the procedure, according to the study’s authors. Instead, the majority of clinical scenarios in which patients are transfused can lead to negative outcomes including a higher risk of lung injury, stroke, heart attack, kidney failure, infection or death.

Findings were first presented at a Society for the Advancement of Blood Management meeting this spring. Aryeh Shander, MD, one of the investigators and an anesthesiologist and critical care specialist at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in Englewood, N.J., has long advocated for appropriate transfusion practice as a major cornerstone of promoting patient safety.

Dr. Shander says he hopes these latest findings will help hospitalists make more informed decisions at the bedside, rather than having transfusions continue to be what he calls a “default procedure” in hospitals.

“The preponderance of data linking transfusions to poorer outcomes should make conservative transfusion practice the norm,” Dr. Shander says, “not something that needs to be defended or explained.” He spoke to Today’s Hospitalist about changing physicians’ approach to ordering transfusions.

Why has ordering transfusions become the default position?

Partly, it’s because transfusions are so easy. But blood is an organ, and when we transfuse patients, we’re actually performing a small transplant. There is no other tissue that you can transplant by just writing an order.

Ordering a transfusion is much easier than, say, trying to figure out the cause and treating a patient’s anemia. Transfusion ends up having very little to do with a patient, but a lot to do with the ease of administration.

What are the current guidelines?

They haven’t really changed since 1988 and the first NIH consensus conference. Over the years, guidelines have become more restrictive in terms of using all blood products, which is an improvement. Hopefully, guidelines will be updated to reflect evidence that has come to light since they were first produced.

Your study looked at 450 different clinical scenarios among patients without active hemorrhage or trauma and found transfusion benefit in only 12%. Who are the patients who benefit?

Those were mostly patients with chronic hematologic diseases that require repeated transfusions, such as myelodysplastic syndrome, sickle cell disease or thalassemia. The benefits of transfusion outweigh the risks in patients who cannot make their own red cells because of bone marrow diseases.

Much of the recent debate about transfusions is over the right hemoglobin level trigger and whether physicians should use a liberal vs. restrictive trigger strategy. Do you advocate getting away from the notion of transfusion triggers altogether?

Ours is the first study to look at transfusion in terms of patient outcomes, rather than at just a trigger. Transfusion should be and is a complex decision, not a response to a number.

Patients’ tolerance of anemia and the effects of anemia on them are as individual as fingerprints. Using a transfusion trigger without having a clear, evidence-based expectation of benefit confers only risk to patients.

Hospitalists say they order more transfusions than orthopedists as a way to improve function in anemic patients. How should they approach patients with anemia?

Many patients who have anemia get ignored. They’re never screened for anemia at their doctor’s office, or they get admitted to the hospital and discharged without having their anemia addressed, which we don’t do for other diseases. When symptoms occur, you need to diagnose and treat anemia as soon and as appropriately as possible.

For anemia caused by nutritional deficiency, therapies include iron, B12, folate or erythropoietin [EPO], treating the anemia through nutrition or pharmaceuticals. You also need to make sure there is no underlying bleeding tendency or disease, like colon cancer, that is causing the anemia. And sometimes patients who have anemia are hypovolemic, so we need to replenish their volume so that

All this article states is that blood transfusions are often over-used, not that they are necessarily harmful - especially in cases where they are actually properly applied. Pointing to the fact that a given method can be misapplied doesn't diminish the actual function and effectiveness of the procedure when properly applied. In fact, just two years ago the same magazine posted this article, lauding the efforts of better blood transfusion practice and the benefits of it:

Moving the needle on transfusions | Today's Hospitalist

Also, copying and pasting articles verbatim (without providing a direct link to the source) is a poor way to demonstrate that you actually understand what the article is saying. It is also potentially breaking forum rules regarding spam.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
All this article states is that blood transfusions are often over-used, not that they are necessarily harmful - especially in cases where they are actually properly applied. Pointing to the fact that a given method can be misapplied doesn't diminish the actual function and effectiveness of the procedure when properly applied. In fact, just two years ago the same magazine posted this article, lauding the efforts of better blood transfusion practice and the benefits of it:

Moving the needle on transfusions | Today's Hospitalist

Also, copying and pasting articles verbatim (without providing a direct link to the source) is a poor way to demonstrate that you actually understand what the article is saying. It is also potentially breaking forum rules regarding spam.
It is one article! Do you think that all that I have said can be found in ONE article? I am WELL READ, I don't stop at ONE article
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin

Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Bad Blood: Crisis in the American Red Cross
by Judith Reitman, Judith Pertman
3.66 · Rating Details · 35 Ratings · 5 Reviews
Investigative journalist Judith Reitman delivers the never-before-told story of the American Red Cross's fall from grace -- an incredible account of gross mismanagement and shocking neglect. From the Red Cross's decision in 1983 not to use an HIV-screening test, to May 1993 when the FDA brought an unprecedented lawsuit against the organization and its president for thousan ...more
Paperback, 351 pages
Published May 1st 1998 by Pinnacle (first published October 1st 1996)
You're clutching at straws. "The Red Cross has been involved in scandals, according to this book" is no indication whatsoever of the efficacy of necessity of blood transfusion as a medical procedure.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
All this article states is that blood transfusions are often over-used, not that they are necessarily harmful - especially in cases where they are actually properly applied. Pointing to the fact that a given method can be misapplied doesn't diminish the actual function and effectiveness of the procedure when properly applied. In fact, just two years ago the same magazine posted this article, lauding the efforts of better blood transfusion practice and the benefits of it:

Moving the needle on transfusions | Today's Hospitalist

Also, copying and pasting articles verbatim (without providing a direct link to the source) is a poor way to demonstrate that you actually understand what the article is saying. It is also potentially breaking forum rules regarding spam.
You asked me to prove that 40 to 60 percent of transfusions are unneeded! That is what this article says, but you find fault that it doesn't "umbrella" everything that I told you
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
You're clutching at straws. "The Red Cross has been involved in scandals, according to this book" is no indication whatsoever of the efficacy of necessity of blood transfusion as a medical procedure.
It is ONE piece in me putting together an argument that the history of blood is dangerous for many reasons! Other blood institutions back then had bad reputations too!
 
Top