(P-TS-10) An Analysis of Anesthesiologist and Transfusion Service Staff Preferences Between Pathogen Reduced Cryoprecipitated Fibrinogen Complex and Conventional Cryoprecipitated AHF
Background/Case Studies: Our center recently completed a clinical trial comparing Pathogen Reduced Cryoprecipitated Fibrinogen Complex, Intercept Fibrinogen Complex (IFC) to conventional Cryoprecipitated AHF (Cryo-AHF) to reduce overall operative transfusions. During the trial, all hospital cryoprecipitate orders were cluster randomized by month to be fulfilled with either IFC or Cryo-AHF. For IFC months, units were kept thawed in the blood bank at all times to fulfill orders due to its longer expiration compared to Cryo-AHF (5 days vs. 6 hours). This study was designed to analyze anesthesiologist and transfusion service staff preferences between IFC and Cryo-AHF.
Study
Design/Methods: Two surveys, one for transfusion service staff and one for anesthesiologists, were sent to 80 individuals experienced with both components. At the conclusion of the trial, surveys were distributed by e-mail and analyzed using a web-based platform (Qualtrics).
Results/Findings: The anesthesiology and transfusion service staff surveys had response rates of 88% (21/24) and 79% (44/56), respectively. Most anesthesiologists (86%) and transfusion staff (82%) preferred IFC over Cryo-AHF. Some had no preference between IFC and Cryo-AHF (14% for anesthesiologists and 11% for transfusion staff). No anesthesiologists and 7% of transfusion staff preferred Cryo-AHF over IFC. Most anesthesiologists felt that IFC and Cryo-AHF demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy (81%), and the remainder (19%) felt that IFC showed superior efficacy. The most common reasons anesthesiologists preferred IFC included less wastage due to product expiration (89%), reduced time to fulfill orders (89%), increased sense of clinical security by having cryoprecipitate readily available (78%), decreased infectious risk (72%) and a more standardized fibrinogen content (61%). The most common reasons transfusion service staff preferred IFC included less wastage (89%), immediate availability to fulfill emergency orders (89%), less time for the blood bank to fulfill orders (72%), less stress to complete orders (69%) and decreased infectious risk (67%). Most transfusion service staff believed that IFC saved time (96%) and arrived sooner to patients (98%) compared to Cryo-AHF. Conclusions: Anesthesiologists and transfusion service staff preferred IFC over Cryo-AHF and perceived that use of IFC was associated with less wastage due to product expiration. The availability of pre-thawed IFC in the transfusion service resulted in an increased sense of clinical security in the operating room. Likewise, transfusion service staff felt less stress completing IFC orders and believed that use of IFC saved time and arrived sooner to patients compared to Cryo-AHF.
