Pro-Con Debate: Anesthesiologists Should Be Responsible for Treating Preoperative Anemia.

Nadia B Hensley,Steven M Frank,Edward C Nemergut,Grant A Neely
{"title":"Pro-Con Debate: Anesthesiologists Should Be Responsible for Treating Preoperative Anemia.","authors":"Nadia B Hensley,Steven M Frank,Edward C Nemergut,Grant A Neely","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000006854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss whether anesthesiologists should be responsible for treating preoperative anemia. This debate was proposed based on the article published in this issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia by Warner et al, which is an advisory on managing preoperative anemia endorsed by both the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and the Society for Advancement of Patient Blood Management. All evidence suggests that anemia is not just an innocent \"bystander\" which can be solved by transfusion. In fact, both anemia and transfusion are independently associated with adverse outcomes, so why not avoid both? It just makes sense that patients show up for surgery with enough red blood cells to avoid needing transfusion with someone else's. Even if we agree that preoperative anemia is worth treating before surgery, the question remains who should be responsible for doing so, and therein lies the reason for this Pro-Con debate. Should it be the responsibility of the anesthesiologist, or not? Let the readers decide.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss whether anesthesiologists should be responsible for treating preoperative anemia. This debate was proposed based on the article published in this issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia by Warner et al, which is an advisory on managing preoperative anemia endorsed by both the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and the Society for Advancement of Patient Blood Management. All evidence suggests that anemia is not just an innocent "bystander" which can be solved by transfusion. In fact, both anemia and transfusion are independently associated with adverse outcomes, so why not avoid both? It just makes sense that patients show up for surgery with enough red blood cells to avoid needing transfusion with someone else's. Even if we agree that preoperative anemia is worth treating before surgery, the question remains who should be responsible for doing so, and therein lies the reason for this Pro-Con debate. Should it be the responsibility of the anesthesiologist, or not? Let the readers decide.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正反方辩论:麻醉师应负责治疗术前贫血。
在这篇 Pro-Con 评论文章中,我们讨论了麻醉医师是否应该负责治疗术前贫血。这场辩论是基于本期《麻醉与镇痛》杂志上发表的华纳等人的文章而提出的,该文章是心血管麻醉医师学会和促进患者血液管理学会共同认可的术前贫血管理建议。所有证据都表明,贫血并不是输血就能解决的无辜 "旁观者"。事实上,贫血和输血都与不良后果独立相关,为什么不同时避免呢?患者在接受手术时应携带足够的红细胞,以避免输注他人的红细胞,这才是合理的做法。即使我们同意术前贫血值得在术前治疗,问题仍然是谁应该负责治疗,这也是这场正反辩论的原因所在。到底该不该由麻醉师负责?让读者来决定吧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Large Language Models and the American Board of Anesthesiology Examination In Response Self-Citation in Anesthesiology Journals: Methodology Concerns Optimal Maternal Ventilation During Laparotomy with General Anesthesia in Pregnancy in the Ovine Model Additive and Multiplicative Interactions in Factorial Randomized Trials: What, Why, and How?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1