Skip to main content

Table 1 Current studies relating to the use of blood conservation devices in critical care

From: Blood conservation devices in critical care: a narrative review

Study and year of publication Design Outcome
Silver - 1993 [11] Prospective, randomized crossover comparing the Safedraw device and conventional arterial line. 31 patients enrolled, study period 7 days.
Over 7-day period, the control group had a larger blood discard volume by an average of 156.8 ml (p < 0.001).
Peruzzi - 1993 [21] Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing the VAMP system to control. 100 patients enrolled, mean study period 4 days.
Total volume of blood discarded significantly lower in the VAMP group (19.4 ml vs. 103.5 ml, p < 0.001).
Hb decreased by 1.4 g/dL in the control vs. 1 g/dL in the VAMP group (p = nonsignificant). Transfusion requirements similar in both groups –no transfusion protocol.
Peruzzi - 1996 [22] Prospective, randomized trial comparing microbial contamination between the VAMP and Safedraw device. 40 patients studied for an average of 3 days.
No difference in contamination rates between the two devices.
No catheter-related infections
Thorpe - 2000 [23] Prospective, randomized trial comparing VAMP device to conventional arterial line. 100 patients followed for 15 days.
No significant difference in Hb concentration or transfusion requirements between the two groups. Mean Hb remained >10 throughout study - no transfusion protocol.
MacIsaac - 2003 [24] Randomized, unblinded, control trial comparing VAMP to control. 160 patients, mean study period 3 days.
Total volume of blood discarded significantly lower in the VAMP group (1 ml vs. 62 ml, p < 0.001).
No significant change in Hb concentration between groups but unadjusted for transfusion.
Fewer patients transfused within VAMP group (17 vs. 30 p = 0.04)- no transfusion protocol
Mahdy - 2009 [25] Prospective, randomized, unblinded controlled clinical study. Comparing VAMP plus paediatric vials to control plus adult vials. 39 patients, study period 3 days
Total volume of blood discarded significantly less in the VAMP group (0 ml vs. 25 ml, p < 0.001)
No statistical difference in fall of Hb concentration (0.79 vs. 1.3 g/dL, p = 0.09) - no patient required transfusion.
Rezende - 2010 [26] Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing transfusion rates and Hb loss between VAMP system and control. 127 patients followed for 14 days.
Smaller decline in Hb within the VAMP group (p = 0.03) - no difference in transfusion rate; transfusion threshold 7 g/dL.
Mukhopadhyay - 2010 [27] Before and after intervention study assessing the impact of a restrictive transfusion strategy when comparing VAMP to control. 250 patients followed for 28 days or until discharge from ICU.
Smaller decline in Hb within the VAMP group (1.44 vs. 2.13 g/dL, p = 0.02)
VAMP group required less transfusions (0.068 vs. 0.131 units/patient/day, p = 0.02); transfusion threshold of 7.5 g/dL.
Oto - 2011 [28] Prospective, randomized study comparing bacterial contamination between VAMP and control. 216 patients followed for a median of 4 days.
   No statistically significant change in tip colonization between the two groups. No catheter-related infections.