Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001) · 2016
Transfusion practice in dogs and cats: an Internet-based survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jagodich Tiffany A, Holowaychuk Marie K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To characterize and compare current canine and feline transfusion practices at private referral hospitals (PRH) and veterinary teaching hospitals (VTH), including information regarding blood donor screening; blood product collection, storage, and administration; recipient screening; and monitoring during transfusions.
DESIGN: Internet-based survey.
SUBJECTS: Sixty-five board-certified specialist veterinarians, 3 veterinarians, and 5 veterinary technicians from 53 PRH and 20 VTH.
METHODS: A survey was disseminated via email LIST-SERVs; 1 survey response per hospital was included.
MAIN RESULTS: Survey results revealed that PRH more commonly obtained canine and feline blood products solely from blood banks (P < 0.05) and VTH more commonly used hospital-run donor programs (P < 0.05). Canine cryo-poor plasma was more likely to be stored by VTH compared to PRH (P = 0.018) and VTH were more likely to store canine fresh platelet products for >72 hours (P = 0.046). The use of client-owned canine donors (P = 0.043), administration of precollection 1-deamino-8-d-arginine vasopressin to canine donors (P = 0.041), and storage of blood products in a dedicated refrigerator (P = 0.003) and -20°C or -80°C freezer (P = 0.044) were more common in VTH than PRH. However, the use of a refrigerator freezer (P = 0.001), single bag canine collection systems (P = 0.021), and agglutination cards for feline blood typing (P = 0.032), as well as warming of blood products prior to administration (P = 0.021) were more commonly reported by PRH compared to VTH.
CONCLUSIONS: Although some transfusion practices including the method and length of storage of blood products, use and screening of blood donors, and administration methods varied between VTH and PRH, most transfusion practices were similar. The information reported from this survey could aid the development of future veterinary transfusion consensus statements.
DESIGN: Internet-based survey.
SUBJECTS: Sixty-five board-certified specialist veterinarians, 3 veterinarians, and 5 veterinary technicians from 53 PRH and 20 VTH.
METHODS: A survey was disseminated via email LIST-SERVs; 1 survey response per hospital was included.
MAIN RESULTS: Survey results revealed that PRH more commonly obtained canine and feline blood products solely from blood banks (P < 0.05) and VTH more commonly used hospital-run donor programs (P < 0.05). Canine cryo-poor plasma was more likely to be stored by VTH compared to PRH (P = 0.018) and VTH were more likely to store canine fresh platelet products for >72 hours (P = 0.046). The use of client-owned canine donors (P = 0.043), administration of precollection 1-deamino-8-d-arginine vasopressin to canine donors (P = 0.041), and storage of blood products in a dedicated refrigerator (P = 0.003) and -20°C or -80°C freezer (P = 0.044) were more common in VTH than PRH. However, the use of a refrigerator freezer (P = 0.001), single bag canine collection systems (P = 0.021), and agglutination cards for feline blood typing (P = 0.032), as well as warming of blood products prior to administration (P = 0.021) were more commonly reported by PRH compared to VTH.
CONCLUSIONS: Although some transfusion practices including the method and length of storage of blood products, use and screening of blood donors, and administration methods varied between VTH and PRH, most transfusion practices were similar. The information reported from this survey could aid the development of future veterinary transfusion consensus statements.