Elektronisk udgave - Sundhedsstyrelsen

What was the opinion of non-user departments of the technologies?
The majority of departments primarily stated lack of knowledge of
or insufficient experience with the individual technologies as the
reasons for not using the technologies. Hesitation on account of the
costs of e.g. EPO and doubts about the effectiveness of the technologies,
for example in relation to aprotinin and TXA, was also a notable
factor.
TXA was generally more well-known than aprotinin among nonusers;
both pharmaceuticals were relatively little known among orthopedic
surgeons. In relation to ANH lack of experience and organisational
circumstances were stated as constraints, while in the
case of autotransfusion/CS it was primarily the lack of equipment,
which was a constraint. PAD was partly deemed too expensive, and
partly it was not used because of lack of facilities and possibilities
of cooperation in the hospitals.
What were the views of the scientific societies?
The transfusion field was not a regular, separate subject of discussion
in three of four relevant societies which were asked 2 , and at the
time of the interviews none of the societies had been involved in the
development of clinical practice guidelines regarding the technologies.
The level of activity in terms of specialist meetings to discuss
the subject varied. They wanted training and instruction of personnel
to be given higher priority, also for nurses. In general there was
a positive attitude towards blood-saving technologies, but the societies
disagreed over which technologies would have a future in Denmark.
There were rather conflicting opinions concerning PAD.
The individual technologies - what conclusions can be drawn?
The overall results of the ISPOT-project and their significance in relation
to Danish transfusion practice were brought up for discussion
in a panel of Danish experts in this field. They reached the following
conclusions:
Antifibrinolytic agents (aprotinin, desmopressin, TXA)
The actual use of these pharmaceuticals appears to correspond very
much to the solutions one would choose on the basis of the clinical
2 The Danish Surgical Society (Dansk Kirurgisk Selskab), The Danish Orthopedic Society (Dansk Ortopædisk Selskab), The Danish Society of
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Dansk Selskab for Anæstesiologi og Intensiv Medicin) and The Danish Society for Clinical
Immunology (DSCI) (Dansk Selskab for Klinisk Immunologi).
xxi