thread: Bloodless medicine v Blood Transfusions

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #9

    Nov 2007
    Earth
    4,434

    Kate07 - thanks for asking! There are still many things that we can't screen for in blood, so when receiving someone else's blood, the body has to continue trying to heal the original injury/trauma, PLUS deal with whatever has been in the blood transfusion. Most people will have a reaction to a blood transfusion anyway, as it is essentially a foreign body, much the same as receiving an organ and having to take anti rejection meds.

    In the case of severe blood loss, more often than not a blood volume expander can be used instead of a direct transfusion. The body will automatically make more blood, but sometimes we lose it too fast, and that's where the expander comes in - obviously expanding volume until our own system can catch up.

    I read a study a few years ago about 2 patients who both had open heart surgery - one had a transfusion and the other refused for religious reasons. While both lived, the post-op recovery time for the patient who received the transfusion was far longer than the patient who didn't. Obviously they would both have had different lifestyles etc that may have helped the outcome, but I think it definitely shows the effect a blood transfusion can have on an already sick patient, KWIM?

    While it has been a slow process, bloodless medicine is starting to be recognized for its benefits. As far as I know, it is now being taught in med schools, as opposed to the old 'give them a pint of blood just to be sure' mentality. It also promotes more care and attention on the part of the doctor and surgeon - not having the 'safety net' of a blood transfusion, they are forced to pay closer attention to what is going on, before anything becomes a major problem.

    There are plenty of sites on the subject - I don't think I can post links, but you can just google bloodless medicine or bloodless surgery

    EDIT: I've always thought it strange when doctors give a patient who is losing blood MORE blood - wouldn't it be more effective to find where it's leaking from? It seems like putting more water in a bucket because it has a hole in it, KWIM?
    Last edited by Bumperstump Cummerbund; July 28th, 2009 at 02:41 PM.