First National Daily eMedical Newspaper of India
Nobody Reports News Better Than Us  
Editorial (Dr SS Agarwal, Dr K K Aggarwal)
To Read the full story on emedinexus.com, or download our Android app or iOS app
14th October 2016
New updated RBC transfusion guidelines 
 
AABB, earlier known as the American Association of Blood Banks, has published new guidelines to help clinicians in decision making about red blood cell (RBC) transfusion "Clinical Practice Guidelines from the AABB: Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds and Storage" were published online October 12, 2016 in JAMA. These guidelines are an update of the RBC transfusion guidelines that were released in 2012.

The Expert Panel recommends:
  • A restrictive RBC transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL in hospitalized hemodynamically stable adult patients, including critical care patients instead of the currently recommended 10 g/dL.
  • An RBC transfusion hemoglobin threshold of 8 g/dL and a target of 8 to 10 g/dL for patients with acute coronary syndrome.
  • A restrictive RBC transfusion threshold of 8 g/dL for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, cardiac surgery and those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease.
  • Patients, including neonates requiring transfusions, should receive standard issue (RBC units selected at any point within their licensed dating period) rather than only fresh RBC units that have been stored for less than 10 days.
  • Single-unit transfusions should be considered for patients without active bleeding.
To Read More or Comment, Click Here
Top News
Practice Updates
eMedi Humor
Medicolegal Corner
eMedi Quiz

A)Thymoma 
B)Neurogenic tumour 
C)Lymphoma 
D)Pericardial cyst
Webcasts 
Lifestyle Updates
 
Inspirational Story 1: Military story: True friend
Inspirational Story 2: The Bird Feeder 
Press Release
Difference of opinion and error of judgement is not negligience: IMA & HCFI
 
New Delhi, 13th October 2016: Imagine the following scenario, a person suspected of a serious crime is facing court judgemement for his actions. The lower court offers him death sentence, the case is then taken to the high court where life sentence is offered to the individual. Now comes the supreme court which upon careful reconsideration of facts and evidences, abolishes all the previous sentences and grants freedom to the individual. Had the high court and the supreme court not been involved, our hypothetical individual might have faced the death sentence inevitably. In this case, is the lower court negligient? The answer is obviously, NO. 

So, difference of opinion is not considered a professional deficiency and is a routine and accepted norm.
To Read More or Comment, Click Here
IMA Updates