↓ Skip to main content

Risk associated with perioperative red blood cell transfusion in cranial surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Neurosurgical Review, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Risk associated with perioperative red blood cell transfusion in cranial surgery
Published in
Neurosurgical Review, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10143-017-0819-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan A. Cohen, Nima Alan, Andreea Seicean, Robert J. Weil

Abstract

We assessed the impact of intra- and postoperative RBC transfusion on postoperative morbidity and mortality in cranial surgery. A total of 8924 adult patients who underwent cranial surgery were identified in the 2006-2011 American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Patients undergoing a biopsy, radiosurgery, or outpatient surgery were excluded. Propensity scores were calculated according to demographic variables, comorbidities, and preoperative laboratory values. Patients who had received RBC transfusion were matched to those who did not, by propensity score, preoperative hematocrit level, and by length of surgery, as an indirect measure of potential intraoperative blood loss. Logistic regression was used to predict adverse postoperative outcomes. A total of 625 (7%) patients were transfused with one or more units of packed RBCs. Upon matching, preoperative hematocrit, length of surgery, and emergency status were no longer different between transfused and non-transfused patients. RBC transfusion was associated with prolonged length of hospitalization (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2), postoperative complications (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.0-3.8), 30-day return to operation room (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.2), and 30-day mortality (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.6). RBC transfusion is associated with substantive postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing both elective and emergency cranial surgery. These results suggest judicious use of transfusion in cranial surgery, consideration of alternative means of blood conservation, or pre-operative restorative strategies in patients undergoing elective surgery, when possible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Unspecified 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,531,724
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#467
of 631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,024
of 420,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 631 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.