The biomedical consequences of allogeneic blood transfusions and the possible pathomechanisms of transfusion-related morbidity and mortality are still not entirely understood. In retrospective studies, allogeneic transfusion was associated with increased rates of cancer recurrence, metastasis and death in patients with colorectal cancer. However, correlation does not imply causation. The purpose of this study was to elucidate this empirical observation further in order to address insecurity among patients and clinicians. We focused on the in vitro effect of microparticles derived from red blood cell units (RMPs). We incubated different colon carcinoma cells with RMPs and analyzed their effects on growth, invasion, migration and tumor marker expression. Furthermore, effects on Wnt, Akt and ERK signaling were explored. Our results show RMPs do not seem to affect functional and phenotypic characteristics of different colon carcinoma cells and did not induce or inhibit Wnt, Akt or ERK signaling, albeit in cell culture models lacking tumor microenvironment. Allogeneic blood transfusions are associated with poor prognosis, but RMPs do not seem to convey tumor-enhancing effects. Most likely, the circumstances that necessitate the transfusion, such as preoperative anemia, tumor stage, perioperative blood loss and extension of surgery, take center stage.

Acid–base homeostasis is crucial for all physiological processes in the body and is evaluated using arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis. Screens or printouts of ABG results require the interpretation of many textual elements and numbers, which may delay intuitive comprehension. To optimise the presentation of the results for the specific strengths of human perception, we developed Visual Blood, an animated virtual model of ABG results. In this study, we compared its performance with a conventional result printout. Seventy physicians from three European university hospitals participated in a computer-based simulation study. Initially, after an educational video, we tested the participants’ ability to assign individual Visual Blood visualisations to their corresponding ABG parameters. As the primary outcome, we tested caregivers’ ability to correctly diagnose simulated clinical ABG scenarios with Visual Blood or conventional ABG printouts. For user feedback, participants rated their agreement with statements at the end of the study. Physicians correctly assigned 90% of the individual Visual Blood visualisations. Regarding the primary outcome, the participants made the correct diagnosis 86% of the time when using Visual Blood, compared to 68% when using the conventional ABG printout. A mixed logistic regression model showed an odds ratio for correct diagnosis of 3.4 (95%CI 2.00–5.79, p < 0.001) and an odds ratio for perceived diagnostic confidence of 1.88 (95%CI 1.67–2.11, p < 0.001) in favour of Visual Blood. A linear mixed model showed a coefficient for perceived workload of −3.2 (95%CI −3.77 to −2.64) in favour of Visual Blood. Fifty-one of seventy (73%) participants agreed or strongly agreed that Visual Blood was easy to use, and fifty-five of seventy (79%) agreed that it was fun to use. In conclusion, Visual Blood improved physicians’ ability to diagnose ABG results. It also increased perceived diagnostic confidence and reduced perceived workload. This study adds to the growing body of research showing that decision-support tools developed around human cognitive abilities can streamline caregivers’ decision-making and may improve patient care.

No abstract available.

Background Iron deficiency (ID) is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. The prevalence of preoperative ID ranges from 23 to 33%. Preoperative anemia is associated with worse outcomes, making it important to diagnose and treat ID before elective surgery. Several studies indicated the effectiveness of intravenous iron supplementation in iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)). However, it remains challenging to establish reliable evidence due to heterogeneity in utilized study outcomes. The development of a core outcome set (COS) can help to reduce this heterogeneity by proposing a minimal set of meaningful and standardized outcomes. The aim of our systematic review was to identify and assess outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in iron-deficient patients with or without anemia. Methods We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically from 2000 to April 1, 2022. RCTs and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ID(A), were included. Study characteristics and reported outcomes were extracted. Outcomes were categorized according to an established outcome taxonomy. Quality of outcome reporting was assessed with a pre-specified tool. Reported clinically relevant differences for sample size calculation were extracted. Results Out of 2898 records, 346 underwent full-text screening and 13 studies (five RCTs, eight observational studies) with sufficient diagnostic inclusion criteria for iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)) were eligible. It is noteworthy to mention that 49 studies were excluded due to no confirmed diagnosis of ID(A). Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92%) reported outcomes within the ‘blood and lymphatic system’ domain, followed by “adverse event” (77%) and “need for further resources” (77%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting. Conclusion This systematic review comprehensively depicts the heterogeneity of reported outcomes in studies investigating iron supplementation in ID(A) patients regarding exact definitions and timing. Our analysis provides a systematic base for consenting to a minimal COS. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020214247

Background Data on the routine use of video-assisted laryngoscopy in peri-operative intubations are rather inconsistent and ambiguous, in part due to small populations and non-uniform outcome measures in past trials. Failed or prolonged intubation procedures are a reason for relevant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to determine whether video-assisted laryngoscopy (with both Macintosh-shaped and hyperangulated blades) is at least equal to the standard method of direct laryngoscopy with respect to the first-pass success rate. Furthermore, validated tools from the field of human factors will be applied to examine within-team communication and task load during this critical medical procedure. Methods In this randomized, controlled, three-armed parallel group design, multi-centre trial, a total of more than 2500 adult patients scheduled for perioperative endotracheal intubation will be randomized. In equally large arms, video-assisted laryngoscopy with a Macintosh-shaped or a hyperangulated blade will be compared to the standard of care (direct laryngoscopy with Macintosh blade). In a pre-defined hierarchical analysis, we will test the primary outcome for non-inferiority first. If this goal should be met, the design and projected statistical power also allow for subsequent testing for superiority of one of the interventions. Various secondary outcomes will account for patient safety considerations as well as human factors interactions within the provider team and will allow for further exploratory data analysis and hypothesis generation. Discussion This randomized controlled trial will provide a solid base of data in a field where reliable evidence is of major clinical importance. With thousands of endotracheal intubations performed every day in operating rooms around the world, every bit of performance improvement translates into increased patient safety and comfort and may eventually prevent significant burden of disease. Therefore, we feel confident that a large trial has the potential to considerably benefit patients and anaesthetists alike. Trial registration ClincalTrials.gov NCT05228288. Protocol version 1.1, November 15, 2021.