Dataset Information

The Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy for Critically Injured Patients (RESTRIC) trial: a cluster-randomized, crossover, non-inferiority multicenter trial of restrictive transfusion in trauma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacies of fresh frozen plasma and coagulation factor transfusion have been widely evaluated in trauma-induced coagulopathy management during the acute post-injury phase. However, the efficacy of red blood cell transfusion has not been adequately investigated in patients with severe trauma, and the optimal hemoglobin target level during the acute post-injury and resuscitation phases remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy was clinically non-inferior to a liberal transfusion strategy during the acute post-injury phase.

Methods

This cluster-randomized, crossover, non-inferiority multicenter trial was conducted at 22 tertiary emergency medical institutions in Japan and included adult patients with severe trauma at risk of major bleeding. The institutions were allocated a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy (target hemoglobin levels: 7-9 or 10-12 g/dL, respectively). The strategies were applied to patients immediately after arrival at the emergency department. The primary outcome was 28-day survival after arrival at the emergency department. Secondary outcomes included transfusion volume, complication rates, and event-free days. The non-inferiority margin was set at 3%.

Results

The 28-day survival rates of patients in the restrictive (n = 216) and liberal (n = 195) strategy groups were 92.1% and 91.3%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for 28-day survival in the restrictive versus liberal strategy group was 1.02 (95% confidence interval: 0.49-2.13). Significant non-inferiority was not observed. Transfusion volumes and hemoglobin levels were lower in the restrictive strategy group than in the liberal strategy group. No between-group differences were noted in complication rates or event-free days.

Conclusions

Although non-inferiority of the restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy for 28-day survival was not statistically significant, the mortality and complication rates were similar between the groups. The restrictive transfusion strategy results in a lower transfusion volume.

Trial registration number

umin.ac.jp/ctr: UMIN000034405, registration date: 8 October 2018.

SUBMITTER: Hayakawa M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10364403 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy for Critically Injured Patients (RESTRIC) trial: a cluster-randomized, crossover, non-inferiority multicenter trial of restrictive transfusion in trauma.

Hayakawa Mineji M Tagami Takashi T Kudo Daisuke D Ono Kota K Aoki Makoto M Endo Akira A Yumoto Tetsuya T Matsumura Yosuke Y Irino Shiho S Sekine Kazuhiko K Ushio Noritaka N Ogura Takayuki T Nachi Sho S Irie Yuhei Y Hayakawa Katsura K Ito Yusuke Y Okishio Yuko Y Muronoi Tomohiro T Kosaki Yoshinori Y Ito Kaori K Nakatsutsumi Keita K Kondo Yutaka Y Ueda Taichiro T Fukuma Hiroshi H Saisaka Yuichi Y Tominaga Naoki N Kurita Takeo T Nakayama Fumihiko F Shibata Tomotaka T Kushimoto Shigeki S

Journal of intensive care 20230724 1

<h4>Background</h4>The efficacies of fresh frozen plasma and coagulation factor transfusion have been widely evaluated in trauma-induced coagulopathy management during the acute post-injury phase. However, the efficacy of red blood cell transfusion has not been adequately investigated in patients with severe trauma, and the optimal hemoglobin target level during the acute post-injury and resuscitation phases remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether a restrictive transfusio ...[more]

PMID: 37488591

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionResuscitation using blood products is critical during the acute postinjury period. However, the optimal target haemoglobin (Hb) levels have not been adequately investigated. With the restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial, we aim to compare the restrictive and liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies.Methods and analysisThis is a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority trial of patients with severe trauma at 22 hospitals that have been randomised in a 1:1 ratio based on the use of a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy with target Hb levels of 70-90 or 100-120 g/L, respectively, during the first year. Subsequently, after 1-month washout period, another transfusion strategy will be applied for an additional year. RBC transfusion requirements are usually unclear on arrival at the emergency department. Therefore, patients with severe bleeding, which could lead to haemorrhagic shock, will be included in the trial based on the attending physician's judgement. Each RBC transfusion strategy will be applied until 7 days postadmission to the hospital or discharge from the intensive care unit. The outcomes measured will include the 28-day survival rate after arrival at the emergency department (primary), the cumulative amount of blood transfused, event-free days and frequency of transfusion-associated lung injury and organ failure (secondary). Demonstration of the non-inferiority of restrictive transfusion will emphasise its clinical advantages.Ethics and disseminationThe trial will be performed according to the Japanese and International Ethical guidelines. It has been approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating hospital and The Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma (JAST). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients or their representatives. The results of the trial will be disseminated to the participating hospitals and board-certified educational institutions of JAST, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication, and presented at congresses.Trial registration numberUMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000034405. Registered 8 October 2018.

Project description:In recent years, due to the shortage of blood products, some extensive burn patients were forced to adopt an "ultra-restrictive" transfusion strategy, in which the hemoglobin levels of RBC transfusion thresholds were < 7 g/dl or even < 6 g/dl. This study investigated the prognostic impacts of ultra-restrictive RBC transfusion in extensive burn patients. This retrospective multicenter cohort study recruited extensive burns (total body surface area ≥ 50%) from three hospitals in Eastern China between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2022. Patients were divided into an ultra-restrictive transfusion group and a restrictive transfusion group depending on whether they received timely RBC transfusion at a hemoglobin level < 7 g/dl. 1:1 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance selection bias. Modified Poisson regression and linear regression were conducted for sensitive analysis. Subsequently, according to whether they received timely RBC transfusion at a hemoglobin level < 6 g/dl, patients in the ultra-restrictive transfusion group were divided into < 6 g/dl group and 6-7 g/dl group to further compare the prognostic outcomes. 271 eligible patients with extensive burns were included, of whom 107 patients were in the ultra-restrictive transfusion group and 164 patients were in the restrictive transfusion group. The ultra-restrictive transfusion group had a significantly lower RBC transfusion volume than the restrictive transfusion group (11.5 [5.5, 21.5] vs 17.3 [9.0, 32.5] units, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of in-hospital mortality, risk of infection, hospital length of stay, and wound healing time after PSM or multivariate adjustment (p > 0.05). Among the ultra-restrictive transfusion group, patients with RBC transfusion threshold < 6 g/dl had a significantly higher hospital mortality than 6-7 g/dl (53.1% vs 21.3%, p = 0.001). For extensive burn patients, no significant adverse effects of ultra-restrictive RBC transfusion were found in this study. When the blood supply is tight, it is acceptable to adopt an RBC transfusion threshold of < 7 g/dL but not < 6 g/dL.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough blood transfusions can be lifesaving in severe hemorrhage, they can also have potential complications. As anemia has also been associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients, determining an optimal transfusion trigger is a real challenge for clinicians. This is even more important in patients with acute brain injury who were not specifically evaluated in previous large randomized clinical trials. Neurological patients may be particularly sensitive to anemic brain hypoxia because of the exhausted cerebrovascular reserve, which adjusts cerebral blood flow to tissue oxygen demand.MethodsWe described herein the methodology of a prospective, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic trial comparing two different strategies for red blood cell transfusion in patients with acute brain injury: a "liberal" strategy in which the aim is to maintain hemoglobin (Hb) concentrations greater than 9 g/dL and a "restrictive" approach in which the aim is to maintain Hb concentrations greater than 7 g/dL. The target population is patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), or intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The primary outcome is the unfavorable neurological outcome, evaluated using the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (eGOS) of 1-5 at 180 days after the initial injury. Secondary outcomes include, among others, 28-day survival, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, the occurrence of extra-cerebral organ dysfunction/failure, and the development of any infection or thromboembolic events. The estimated sample size is 794 patients to demonstrate a reduction in the primary outcome from 50 to 39% between groups (397 patients in each arm). The study was initiated in 2016 in several ICUs and will be completed in December 2022.DiscussionThis trial will assess the impact of a liberal versus conservative strategy of blood transfusion in a large cohort of critically ill patients with a primary acute brain injury. The results of this trial will help to improve blood product and transfusion use in this specific patient population and will provide additional data in some subgroups of patients at high risk of brain ischemia, such as those with intracranial hypertension or cerebral vasospasm.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02968654.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies to guide red blood cell transfusions.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sourcesCochrane central register of controlled trials, SilverPlatter Medline (1950 to date), SilverPlatter Embase (1980 to date), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present). Reference lists of identified trials and other systematic reviews were assessed, and authors and experts in transfusion were contacted to identify additional trials.Trial selectionPublished and unpublished randomised clinical trials that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy in adults or children, irrespective of language, blinding procedure, publication status, or sample size.Data extractionTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts of trials identified, and relevant trials were evaluated in full text for eligibility. Two reviewers then independently extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias from included trials. random effects models were used to estimate risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.Results31 trials totalling 9813 randomised patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving red blood cells (relative risk 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.63, 8923 patients, 24 trials) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (mean difference -1.43, 95% confidence interval -2.01 to -0.86) were lower with the restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies. Restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies were not associated with risk of death (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01, 5707 patients, nine lower risk of bias trials), overall morbidity (0.98, 0.85 to 1.12, 4517 patients, six lower risk of bias trials), or fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (1.28, 0.66 to 2.49, 4730 patients, seven lower risk of bias trials). Results were not affected by the inclusion of trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Using trial sequential analyses on mortality and myocardial infarction, the required information size was not reached, but a 15% relative risk reduction or increase in overall morbidity with restrictive transfusion strategies could be excluded.ConclusionsCompared with liberal strategies, restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused and number of patients being transfused, but mortality, overall morbidity, and myocardial infarction seemed to be unaltered. Restrictive transfusion strategies are safe in most clinical settings. Liberal transfusion strategies have not been shown to convey any benefit to patients.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42013004272.

Dataset Information

The Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy for Critically Injured Patients (RESTRIC) trial: a cluster-randomized, crossover, non-inferiority multicenter trial of restrictive transfusion in trauma.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

The Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy for Critically Injured Patients (RESTRIC) trial: a cluster-randomized, crossover, non-inferiority multicenter trial of restrictive transfusion in trauma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets