"Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions after cardiac surgery at no greater health risk"

Health Pop July 3, 2012 ^ | July 3,2012 | Michelle Castillo

[count-your-change]

"The study looked at 48,986 non-Witnesses who had blood transfusions and 322 Witnesses who refused to have blood transfusions who all underwent cardiac surgery between 1983 to 2011. After matching the patients up by similar cases, researchers found both groups had similar risks for dying at the hospital. However, Witnesses had lower chances of having additional operations for bleeding, renal failure and sepsis compared with non-Witnesses who received transfusions"

[count-your-change]

(The CBS URL seems not to work but google "Healthpop July 3,2012" and that should work.)

"The results of the study: Outcome of Patients Who Refuse Transfusion After Cardiac Surgery: A Natural Experiment With Severe Blood Conservation

Gregory Pattakos, MD, MS; Colleen G. Koch, MD, MS, MBA; Mariano E. Brizzio, MD; Lillian H. Batizy, MS; Joseph F. Sabik, MD; Eugene H. Blackstone, MD; Michael S. Lauer, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(15):1154-1160. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2449

was at the link cited in the Health Pop article,

"Results Witnesses had fewer acute complications and shorter length of stay than matched patients who received transfusions: myocardial infarction, 0.31% vs 2.8% (P = . 01); additional operation for bleeding, 3.7% vs 7.1% (P = . 03); prolonged ventilation, 6% vs 16% (P < . 001); intensive care unit length of stay (15th, 50th, and 85th percentiles), 24, 25, and 72 vs 24, 48, and 162 hours (P < . 001); and hospital length of stay (15th, 50th, and 85th percentiles), 5, 7, and 11 vs 6, 8, and 16 days (P < . 001). Witnesses had better 1-year survival (95%; 95% CI, 93%-96%; vs 89%; 95% CI, 87%-90%; P = . 007) but similar 20-year survival (34%; 95% CI, 31%-38%; vs 32% 95% CI, 28%-35%; P = . 90)."

The medical community is recognizing the health benefits of the "no blood" directive.

[DoughtyOne]

A lot of nice points here, to be sure.

I would also like to raise the issue of self-donating blood to be used in your own surgery. Some health care facilities will allow you to donate your own blood ahead of time, so that it can be used when you need it.

I’ve also heard reports some health care facilities don’t do this, so it’s something people should research before they may have a need to do it.

[DoughtyOne]

Couple of comments by folks contemplating surgery, related to self-donating blood.

http://bonesmart.org/forum/threads/self-donating-blood-for-surgery.10286/

[DoughtyOne]

Donating blood for your own use statement UCSF.

http://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/donating_blood_before_your_hospital_stay/index.html

[KarlInOhio]

Any self-selection effects on the high end for the most complicated cases? For example, will a hospital do a simple procedure on anyone, but refuse to do a complex procedure on a JW because he isn't willing to accept donor blood?

[DoughtyOne]

Preoperative self donated blood Q & A

http://www.mybloodsite.com/content/preoperative-autologous-blood-donation-answer

[catbertz]

My mother was a witness in the nineties, and I had some interesting chats with some of her elders as they tried to recruit me lol. Agreed to disagree on many things, but I appreciate some of their theories on medical issues. The blood tranfusion industry has proven to be russian rulette. Even now thr Red Cross are relaxing some standard to accept more gay blood, as well as other risky lifestyle donors.

The witnesses have been pushing the safer fake blood research forward fortwenty something years. Hospitals now recognize the value since it doesnt go stale like real blood, and they can store unlimited supplies. I would request it myself.

Anyway, thrnks for posting!

[DoughtyOne]

This seems to be a rather generic list of steps to donate your own blood at a lab (likely an in-house hospital lab) prior to surgery.

http://www.laneblood.org/donate-blood/autologous-self-donation/

[count-your-change]

This list is from MD News.com April 15 of last year:

“Bloodless Medicine Programs
The Institute for Patient Blood Management and Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Englewood Hospital in New Jersey became the first hospital in the U.S. to offer bloodless surgery as a standard of care to all its patients. Englewood has been performing bloodless surgery since 1994. Medical professionals from across the country and around the world have come to the Institute to learn how to use alternatives to blood transfusion to improve patient outcomes.

To learn more about the Institute for Patient Blood Management and Bloodless Medicine and Surgery at Englewood Hospital, visit englewoodhospital.com.

The Transfusion-Free Medicine & Surgery Center at Good Samaritan Hospital also treats patients using bloodless techniques. Visit goodsam.org to learn more.

The Bloodless Medicine & Surgery program of Atlanta Medical Center in Georgia is another option for patients seeking bloodless surgery. For more information, visit atlantamedcenter.com.

In Michigan, Bronson Methodist Hospital helps prevent the need for a blood transfusion by employing conservation techniques. To learn more, visit bronsonhealth.com.”

I haven't checked the links but every major hospital has experience with bloodless surgery.

[DoughtyOne]

Non-plasma or blood alternatives...

So-called synthetic blood replacements...

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/drug-hetastarch/article_em.htm

[catbertz]

There are many companies researching/marketing synth blood products:

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2005_Groups/10/webpages/PFClink.htm

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. I know this information is somewhat off topic, since the post was study related, but I wanted folks to know there are options out there.

No offense was intended.

[Emperor Palpatine]

JW’s are unpatriotic cultists.

Un-American pests.

They know not to knock on my door again with their heretic bullcrap...ever since I sicced Tojo on ‘em, hehehe.

[DoughtyOne]

Very good. Thanks for the mention.

[count-your-change]

Even the most complicated heart surgeries are being performed routinely without donor blood. Generally if the operation can be done at all it can be done without transfusion.

I know of no hospital that has refused treatment solely on the basis of the patients refusal to accept a blood transfusion.

If you google some of sites dealing with bloodless surgery you'll find it's far more common in very complicated cases then might be thought.

[G Larry]

Earlier this year, following a botched procedure, I lost 3 liters of blood, and did not receive a transfusion.

[dainbramaged]

JW’s are unpatriotic cultists.
They don't vote, say the pledge of allegiance or serve in the military - they don't believe in America, it's just where they happen to live. The crew that stops here every so often always sends the prettiest women to the door, very friendly of course. I just tell them no thanks, I'm not joining your cult, have a nice day.

[count-your-change]

The blood expanders and such are not the same as blood but quite useful and by yards less expensive to handle.

The purpose of the posting was to show that a position based upon religious principles can prove to be simply good health sense. And I think it also has produced more careful and precise surgical techniques.

[count-your-change]

I’m glad you’re still here to tell about it!

[count-your-change]

None taken, a person should learn all they can about their own health and the choices available in care. We are fortunate in having the internet and free libraries to turn to.