title: The development of indications for the preoperative use of recombinant erythropoietin.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To develop indications for the preoperative use of recombinant erythropoietin (rHuEPO) alone and in conjunction with preoperative autologous donation (PAD).
  
  
  METHODS
  A 2-round modified Delphi-consensus process.
  
  
  METHODS
  Nine physicians representing multiple clinical specialties, practice environments and geographic locations.
  
  
  METHODS
  From evidence tables and a literature summary (MEDLINE database from January 1985 to August 1996) provided and using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method, the physicians developed 264 indications for the preoperative use of rHuEPO by permuting 7 clinical factors (age, history of transfusion or antibody incompatibility, hemoglobin level, anemia of chronic disease, expected blood loss, presence of cardiovascular or cardiopulmonary disease and patient anxiety). These indications were rated on a 9-point appropriateness scale. Median scores and measures of agreement were determined.
  
  
  METHODS
  The significance of cost constraints or cost and blood supply constraints and the impact of each clinical factor on the ratings as judged by statistical analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 264 indications, 54% were rated appropriate, 18% uncertain and 28% inappropriate. Expected blood loss had the greatest impact on the ratings (high expected blood loss had a 5.9 point more appropriate rating on the 9-point scale than low expected blood loss [p < 0.0001]). Preoperative hemoglobin level also significantly influenced the ratings (p < 0.0001). Compared with the clinical context, the ratings under the cost constraint were 1.0 less appropriate (p < 0.0001) for rHuEPO alone and 1.2 less appropriate for rHuEPO and PAD (p < 0.0001). The ratings for patients with moderate expected blood loss were significantly influenced by the cost constraint (less appropriate).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Expected blood loss and preoperative hemoglobin level were the best indicators of rHuEPO appropriateness. Different contexts modify the appropriateness ratings of an expensive drug like rHuEPO.
authors.affiliation: Protocare Sciences, Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA.
authors.forename: R W
authors.initials: RW
authors.lastname: Dubois
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Lim
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Hebert
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sherwood
authors.forename: G H
authors.initials: GH
authors.lastname: Growe
authors.forename: J F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Hardy
authors.forename: R E
authors.initials: RE
authors.lastname: Park
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Waddell
mesh_terms: D016063:Blood Loss, Surgical / Q000517:prevention & control; D001804:Blood Transfusion, Autologous; D002170:Canada; D003697:Delphi Technique; D017723:Drug Utilization Review; D004921:Erythropoietin / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006454:Hemoglobins / Q000032:analysis; D006801:Humans; D011300:Preoperative Care; D011994:Recombinant Proteins
chemical_list: D006454:Hemoglobins; D011994:Recombinant Proteins; D004921:Erythropoietin