Severe Blood Conservation Appears Safe In Cardiac Surgery For Jehovah's Witnesses

by TJ Curioso 17 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • TJ Curioso
    TJ Curioso

    Severe Blood Conservation Appears Safe In Cardiac Surgery For Jehovah's Witnesses

    Severe blood conservation in conjunction with cardiac surgery is not associated with long-term adverse consequences, according to a new study published in Archives of Internal Medicine. ?

    Investigators from the Cleveland Clinic and the NHLBI compared 322 patients who were Jehovan’s Witnesses with an equal number of matched controls. Due to their religious beliefs Witnesses do not receive blood transfusions, and therefore “provide a unique natural experiment in severe blood conservation,” according to the authors.

    Compared to patients who had transfusions, Witnesses had better short term and long term outcomes. They had fewer complications in the hospital and better survival out to 15 years.

    • Perioperative MI: 0.31% for Witnesses versus vs 2.8% for controls (p = .01)
    • Operation for bleeding: 3.7% vs 7.1% (p = .03)
    • Prolonged ventilation: 6% vs 16% (p < .001)
    • Hours in the ICU (15th, 50th, and 85th percentiles): 24 versus 24, 25 versus 48, and 72 versus 162 (p < .001)
    • Survival at 5 years: 86% versus 74%
    • Survival at 10 years: 69% versus 53%
    • Survival at 15 years: 51% versus 35%
    The investigators concluded that although they “found differences in complications among Witnesses and control groups that received transfusions, current extreme blood management strategies do not appear to place patients at heightened risk for reduced long-term survival.”

    In an accompanying editorial, Victor Ferraris points out that “Witnesses who undergo cardiac surgery are likely a healthier subgroup of Witnesses because those who are believed by their surgeons to require blood transfusion to survive cardiac surgery presumably never go to the operating room.” Nevertheless, “the finding that the Witnesses who did not receive transfusions did at least as well as, if not better than, those who received a transfusion raises questions about whether more patients might benefit from surgical strategies that minimize transfusion of blood products.”

    Here is the press release from Archives:

    Study Examines Outcomes of Patients Who Refuse Transfusion Following Cardiac Surgery

    CHICAGO– Jehovah’s Witness patients who undergo cardiac surgery do not appear to be at increased risk for surgical complications or death when compared to patients who undergo cardiac surgery and receive blood transfusions, according to a report published Online First by Archives of Internal Medicine, a JAMA Network publication.

    Jehovah’s Witness patients (Witnesses) hold beliefs that disallow blood product transfusion and encourage the use of a number of blood conservation practices, according to background information in the article.

    Gregory Pattakos, M.D., M.S., of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, and colleagues, sought to compare morbidity and long-term survival rates of Witnesses undergoing cardiac surgery with a similarly matched group of patients who received blood transfusions.

    The authors found that after propensity matching, Witnesses (322 patients) and non-Witnesses (322 patients) had similar risks for hospital mortality, but Witnesses had significantly lower occurrence of additional operation for bleeding, renal failure and sepsis compared with non-Witnesses who received transfusions.

    Witnesses had fewer acute complications, including myocardial infarction (heart attack), additional operations for bleeding and prolonged ventilation. Witnesses also had shorter hospital lengths of stay compared with matched patients who received transfusions, as well as shorter intensive care unit lengths of stay.

    Additionally, Witnesses had higher survival rates compared with non-Witnesses at one-year (95 percent vs. 89 percent) but both groups had similar 20-year survival rates (34 percent vs. 32 percent).

    The authors conclude that the Jehovah’s Witness patients undergoing cardiac surgery at the Cleveland Clinic experienced similar or better short- and long-term survival than non-Witnesses. “Although we found differences in complications among Witnesses and control groups that received transfusions, current extreme blood management strategies do not appear to place patients at heightened risk for reduced long-term survival,” they conclude.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2012/07/02/severe-blood-conservation-appears-safe-in-cardiac-surgery-for-jehovahs-witnesses/
  • dreamgolfer
    dreamgolfer

    SO WHAT - WHO CARES

  • tresdecu
    tresdecu

    To the above poster -> If you personally don't care, fine...Don't read it or waste your time posting on something you don't care about.

    This was interesting to me for several differant reasons...thanks for posting.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    It is not spectacular news that overall cardiac patients do well with aggressive blood conservation and management. On the other hand, a person can lose only so much blood without dying. Cardiac patient or not, patients with hemoglobin levels at or below 3 have a mortality rate way, way far and above the same patient who accepts transfusion of blood products forbidden under Watchtower doctrine. That said…

    There is a well written companion editorial article authored by Dr. Ferraris published with this main article.

    Dr. Ferraris' editorial is one of the few instances documenting something the Watchtower organization has yet to inform Jehovah's Witnesses of: that Witnesses can accept transfusion of cryopoor plasma without facing the organization's harsh shunning policy.

    Cryopoor plasma is a component of blood that is more than 50 percent the volume of whole blood. Jehovah's Witnesses accept this (and many other components) from the blood supply and then turn around and think they abstain from blood. They do this without donating to the blood supply to restore what they use from the precious supply of donor blood.

    For more on Jehovah’s Witnesses and cryopoor plasma (also termed cryosupernatant) see the article Outrageous Omission – Blood available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/06/outrageous-omission-blood.html

    Marvin Shilmer

    http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

  • Pistoff
    Pistoff

    Marvin, is there documentation that witnesses can accept cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant?

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    Good points Marvin.

    A surprising article - I just mentioned it to Zen on AJWRB and he is going to do a little investigating. This goes counter to what the Red Cross says, and they really don't have a bone to pick with JWs.

    Randy

  • jemba
    jemba

    I was offered blood as a 'tonic' after having a baby and losing a fair amount of blood. I refused as I do feel it can be a bit of a shock to the body to receive foreign blood.

    BUT if it became life threatening I would definetely go ahead. I think if I had an operation or another child I would put my own blood aside. This is quite an interesting topic.

  • Shawn10538
    Shawn10538

    Yes I am in the process of tracking down all these people, doctors and writers. It's not really new news. There are benefits to doing what you can to avoid a transfusion of donated blood by other people. That has been ADMITTED (for lack of a better term) by ajwrb for years. But the article fails to disclose how handpicking the JW patients who were able to undergo the surgery with the possibility of foreign blood taken off the table affects the results of the study. It also does not disclose how many JWs simply DIED because their particular situation did not allow provision for a doctor to even ATTEMPT a surgery with their hands tied. Non JWs never had to "MAKE THE CUT" so to speak, like JWs did. Some JWs were simply turned down because it was too risky. Those JWs were not even mentioned in the study. Their cases were not wighed into the overall study.

    Then there is the whole matter of "What blood products and blood transfusions did the JWs accept?" To say that they did not accept any blood as the article suggests is just a LIE. If there was a heart transplant then the JW received blood from the organ. If cell saver technology was used then the JW accepted an autologous blood transfusion, as Dr. Fridey from the Red Cross has verified. So, there is a lot wrong with the whole thing. It is sad that the m,edical comminity is patronizing JWs and stooping to their level, and lying to JWs about their not receiving blood transfusions when they ARE accepting blood transfusions.

    I just want to give a shout out to Danny Hazard for his hard work on the blood issue. He is keeping it alive lately almost single handedly. I know a lot of people hate him on this site, but I love the guy and I respect him. He has been doing more for ajwrb lately than anybody. This Forbes article is going to take a lot of time and money if we want to do it right. Danny has kept up on all the medical news feeds and emails me every case. Plus he comments on all of them and engages the witers and challenges EVERYBODY who supports the JW stance.

    So our team really includes Danny. I view him as a very valuable member of ajwrb. Our team is starting to show signs of existence: Marvin Shilmer, myself, Randy, Danny, Sevan and Brigit pretty much are it at this point. So I am putting it out to JWN, as I said before, it's yours to make fail. It is your to mold and make a success. You can join us and be at the top of a growing organization really quick. It is to the point now that we need to get out there and be in the face of these doctors who think they are helping the situation by promoting a type of medicine that hasn't even been defined yet. "What is Bloodles Medicine?" There is no definition for this term out there yet. That is beacause it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as bloodless surgery.. Marvin makes that point very well in his article. Omission, in other words, oh we forgot to tell you that many people who care donated their blood so you can have this NON BLOOD BLOOD. I imp[lore the medical comminuty to cut the crap and break it to JWs that there is no bloodless options available. There is no substitute for blood.

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    One thing Danny can be very effective at is good publicity (or bad publicity, depending on what side of the fence you're on).

    GO DANNY!

    Randy

  • Refriedtruth
    Refriedtruth

    It is misleading to imply that there is NO RISK refusing blood transfusions which is how the WBTS will spin it. Read the article it's only elective surgery for patients who are not in ER bleeding to death and in a modern hospital that has all the latest blood conservation gadgets.

    How safe is all the thousands of pints of blood that Jehovah's Witnesses do use?

    When are Jehovah's Witnesses going to be allowed by their leaders to start replenishing the blood supply by donating back?Since JW proclaim their chaste lifestyle their blood should be pristine. Better yet,they should build (with their billions in assets) their own hospitals and clinics like the other religions and atheist do.The Watchtower society has sold off billions of dollars of properties and is now cash rich flushed with wealth. Jehovah's Witnesses hospitals that can then do all these marvelous bloodless treatments,they could be the pioneers of the new age. More than 50,000 Jehovah's Witnesses dead from Watchtowers deadly arbitrary blood ban. That is 50 times more than died at Jonestown massacre,some estimates run as high as 100,000 dead

    FMI http://www.ajwrb.org Jehovah's Witnesses blood reform site

    Shocking once-in-a-century TV dramatic episode of JW Emergency Room deaths over no blood.
    http://www.ajwrb.org/images/trauma.rm
    Priceless be sure to save to backup medium and your DVD CD-Roms

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit