Slashdot Mirror
Bloodless Surgery
isaacbowman writes "Dr. Charles Bridges, a Pennsylvania Hospital cardiologist, says says regarding new bloodless surgery options - "Among the benefits are reductions in recovery time, hospital stay, cost and complications -- as well as an estimated $20,000 in savings per patient." Advances in medicine have made this possible and Dr. Bridges also says, "There's no downside to it that we can see, and there's certainly no downside that's been documented." Dr. Patricia Ford, director of Pennsylvania Hospital's Center for Bloodless Medicine & Surgery, further states, why blood transfusions are dangerous, saying that they are "like getting a transplant; they can be risky and should be a last resort.""
How do you cut open someone's chest to fix a heart valve without there being blood?
Vampires.
KFG
As a surgical resident I found most of the article pretty good, but the last line that a blood transfusion was the same as a transplant much have been taken out of context. I have take care of nearly 100 transplant patients during my residnecy and they are by far the most labor intensive petients in the hospital. They are chronically immune suppressed, often on the verge of liver and/or kidne failure, and generally coming in erey year or so with rejection issues.
On the other hand I have taken care of hundreds of patients who have had blood transfusions. While not harmless, a blood transfusion has a miniscule risk of infection (from potential pathogens we are not aware of or cannot test for) or reaction. Only two of my patients have had transfusion reactions which requires stopping the transfusion, some medication, and maybe two extra hospital days. These patients did not need long term immune supression or chronic doses of borderline toxic medications as a result of the transfusion.
Just my little nit pick with the article.
---sam
I can guarantee you, the only party involved in the process who will see that twenty grand is the insurance industry.
M
trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between
The artices does go ahead and admit that the more complex a procedure, the less likely this is possible: so a full-on heart transplant is far less likely to be bloodless than, say, an appendectomy or a stomach reduction (or other similar surgeries that don't require large incisions).
Jehovah's Witness have a theological objection to blood transfusions, but unlike Christian Scientists, not to medical treatment in general. In fact, they are quite insistent on high quality healthcare.
As such, they advocate the use of blood transfer alternatives.
There are various groups of Witnesses that advocate changing the doctrine, but, however odd it may seem to the rest of us, it's one of core teachings of the church and has survived even when other once-rejected medical technologies (organ transplants, certain immunizations) have now been accepted.
This doctrine has caused the Witnesses to push the medical community to come up with many alternatives to transfusion. These alternatives include Erythropoietin Therapy, Hemopure, a bovine-hemoglobin based blood substitute (this was quite a surprise, as previously even animal blood was considered taboo), perfluorocarbon based blood substitutes (back when I was young, I knew Witnesses who had been guinea pigs for this stuff), and a host of others. There are also specific surgical guidelines published in dealing with Witnesses.
All in all, the Witnesses are one of the main driving forces for research into lessening the need for blood transfusions. There are others to be sure (type matching, blood shortages, infectious diseases carried by tainted blood, etc.), but nothing beats having a large pool of otherwise healthy patients who are highly motivated to be test subjects.
If you really want to investigate why bloodless surgery is gaining ground in the medical industry then take a look at this article published by Jehovah's Witnesses. And before you turn up your nose because of the source of the article, you should really give it a read. The JW's have had a major impact on how the medical industry views this topic and many advances have been made because of them. Here's the article: http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?art icle=article_06.htm
TheTiminator
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses who has twice faced a serious blood-loss I can tell you how happy I am to see advances like this. Actually as a Witnesses, we give a lot of credit to courageous doctors who took on difficult cases without having the option of transfusing. The issue is actually surprisingly broad -- involving things like informed consent and various patient rights concerns. In regards to blood being a vector for pathogens, this is certainly well known, but our stand is purely religous based (based on the Biblical mandate expressed in Acts 15:29 and elsewhere). In my own case I was so glad to have avoided a transfusion in Canada during the early 80s, just before the AIDs-tainted blood supply issue became known. Canada was behind other countries, such as the US in implementing AIDS/HIV testing to routine blood screening. Ironically, even though I know live in the US, I had an accident while on vacation in Canada in 2001 which required emergency surgery. I can tell you that while I did fine, many hospitals in Canada simply can not afford some the equipment mentioned in the artical.