Dataset Information

Restrictive compared with liberal red cell transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To determine whether a restrictive strategy of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion at lower haemoglobin concentrations is inferior to a liberal strategy of RBC transfusion at higher haemoglobin concentrations in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Methods and results

We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effect of restrictive and liberal RBC transfusion strategies on mortality within 30 days of surgery as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were those potentially resulting from anaemia-induced tissue hypoxia and transfusion outcomes. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until 17 November 2017. Thirteen trials were included. The risk ratio (RR) of mortality derived from 4545 patients assigned to a restrictive strategy when compared with 4547 transfused according to a liberal strategy was 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.21, I2 = 0]. A restrictive strategy did not have a statistically significant effect on the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.26; I2=0), stroke (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.27, I2 = 0), renal failure (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.20, I2 = 0), or infection (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.29, I2 = 0). Subgroup analysis of adult and paediatric trials did not show a significant interaction. At approximately 70% of the critical information size, the meta-analysis of mortality crossed the futility boundary for inferiority of the restrictive strategy.

Conclusion

The current evidence does not support the notion that restrictive RBC transfusion strategies are inferior to liberal RBC strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

SUBMITTER: Shehata N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6441852 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Restrictive compared with liberal red cell transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis.

Shehata Nadine N Mistry Nikhil N da Costa Bruno R BR Pereira Tiago V TV Whitlock Richard R Curley Gerard F GF Scott David A DA Hare Gregory M T GMT Jüni Peter P Mazer C David CD

European heart journal 20190401 13

<h4>Aims</h4>To determine whether a restrictive strategy of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion at lower haemoglobin concentrations is inferior to a liberal strategy of RBC transfusion at higher haemoglobin concentrations in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effect of restrictive and liberal RBC transfusion strategies on mortality within 30 days of surg ...[more]

PMID: 30107514

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare patient outcomes of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease not undergoing cardiac surgery.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesRandomised controlled trials involving a threshold for red blood cell transfusion in hospital. We searched (to 2 November 2015) CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, LILACS, NHSBT Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN Register, and EU Clinical Trials Register. Authors were contacted for data whenever possible.Trial selectionPublished and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing a restrictive with liberal transfusion threshold and that included patients with cardiovascular disease.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was completed in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methods. Relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were presented in all meta-analyses. Mantel-Haenszel random effects models were used to pool risk ratios.Main outcome measures30 day mortality, and cardiovascular events.Results41 trials were identified; of these, seven included data on patients with cardiovascular disease. Data from a further four trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease were obtained from the authors. In total, 11 trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease (n=3033) were included for meta-analysis (restrictive transfusion, n=1514 patients; liberal transfusion, n=1519). The pooled risk ratio for the association between transfusion thresholds and 30 day mortality was 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.50, P=0.50), with little heterogeneity (I(2)=14%). The risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients managed with restrictive compared with liberal transfusion was increased (nine trials; risk ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.70, P=0.01, I(2)=0%).ConclusionsThe results show that it may not be safe to use a restrictive transfusion threshold of less than 80 g/L in patients with ongoing acute coronary syndrome or chronic cardiovascular disease. Effects on mortality and other outcomes are uncertain. These data support the use of a more liberal transfusion threshold (>80 g/L) for patients with both acute and chronic cardiovascular disease until adequately powered high quality randomised trials have been undertaken in patients with cardiovascular disease.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42014014251.

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.

Project description:BackgroundWhen safe to do so, avoiding blood transfusions in cardiac surgery can avoid the risk of transfusion-related infections and other complications while protecting a scarce resource and reducing costs. This protocol describes a kidney substudy of the Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III (TRICS-III) trial, a multinational noninferiority randomized controlled trial to determine whether the risk of major clinical outcomes in patients undergoing planned cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is no greater with a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion.ObjectiveThe objective of this substudy is to determine whether the risk of acute kidney injury is no greater with a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion, and whether this holds true in patients with and without preexisting chronic kidney disease.Design and settingMultinational noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 73 centers in 19 countries (2014-2017).PatientsPatients (~4800) undergoing planned cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.MeasurementsThe primary outcome of this substudy is perioperative acute kidney injury, defined as an acute rise in serum creatinine from the preoperative value (obtained in the 30-day period before surgery), where an acute rise is defined as ≥26.5 μmol/L in the first 48 hours after surgery or ≥50% in the first 7 days after surgery.MethodsWe will report the absolute risk difference in acute kidney injury and the 95% confidence interval. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury, including staging definitions, and will examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease (defined as a preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 mL/min/1.73 m2).LimitationsIt is not possible to blind patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess outcomes, and outcome assessors will be blinded to the intervention assignment.ResultsSubstudy results will be reported by the year 2018.ConclusionsThis substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the risk of acute kidney injury of a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion in the presence of anemia during cardiac surgery done with cardiopulmonary bypass.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov; clinical trial registration number NCT 02042898.

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:BackgroundWe assessed the effect of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy on survival outcome in sepsis or septic shock by systematically reviewing the literature and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases. We included RCTs that compared mortality between a liberal transfusion strategy with a hemoglobin threshold of 9 or 10 g/dL and a restrictive transfusion strategy with a hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/dL in adults with sepsis or septic shock. Two investigators independently screened citations and conducted data extraction. The primary outcome was 28- or 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 60- and 90-day mortality, use of life support at 28 days of admission, and number of patients transfused during their intensive care unit stay. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to report pooled odds ratios (ORs).ResultsA total of 1516 patients from three RCTs were included; 749 were randomly assigned to the liberal transfusion group and 767 to the restrictive strategy group. Within 28-30 days, 273 patients (36.4%) died in the liberal transfusion group, while 278 (36.2%) died in the restrictive transfusion group (pooled OR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.46). For the primary outcome, heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 61.0%, χ2 = 5.13, p = 0.08). For secondary outcomes, only two RCTs were included. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the two groups.ConclusionsWe could not show any difference in 28- or 30-day mortality between the liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies in sepsis or septic shock patients by meta-analysis of RCTs. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the existence of heterogeneity. As sepsis complicates a potentially wide range of underlying diseases, further trials in carefully selected populations are anticipated.Trial registrationThis present study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018108578).

Project description:Objective: Anemia is frequent in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy for AMI patients with anemia is still controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in AMI patients with anemia. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from their inception until March 2021. Studies designed to compare the efficacy between restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with AMI were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, including overall mortality, in-hospital or follow-up mortality. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented and pooled by random-effects models. Results: The search yielded a total of 6,630 participants in six studies. A total of 2,008 patients received restrictive red blood cell transfusion while 4,622 patients were given liberal red blood cell transfusion. No difference was found in overall mortality and follow-up mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82-1.40, P = 0.62; RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.56-1.42, P = 0.62). However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.00-1.50, P = 0.05). No secondary outcomes, including follow-up reinfarction, stroke, and acute heart failure, differed significantly between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analysis showed no differences in overall mortality between the two groups based on sample size and design. Conclusion: Restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion have a similar effect on overall mortality and follow-up mortality in AMI patients with anemia. However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion. The findings suggest that transfusion strategy should be further evaluated in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundThere are no overviews of systematic reviews investigating haemoglobin thresholds for transfusion. This is important as the literature on transfusion thresholds has grown considerably in recent years. Our aim was to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effects of restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies on mortality.MethodsThis was a systematic review of systematic reviews (overview). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, from 2008 to 2018. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials comparing mortality in patients assigned to red cell transfusion strategies based on haemoglobin thresholds. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2 and the quality of evidence pooled using an algorithm to assign GRADE levels.ResultsWe included 19 systematic reviews reporting 33 meta-analyses of mortality outcomes from 53 unique randomised controlled trials. Of the 33 meta-analyses, one was graded as high quality, 15 were moderate, and 17 were low. Of the meta-analyses presenting high- to moderate-quality evidence, 12 (75.0%) reported no statistically significant difference in mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups and four (25.0%) reported significantly lower mortality for patients assigned to a restrictive transfusion strategy. We found few systematic reviews addressed clinical differences between included studies: variation was observed in haemoglobin threshold concentrations, the absolute between group difference in haemoglobin threshold concentration, time to randomisation (resulting in transfusions administered prior to randomisation), and transfusion dosing regimens.ConclusionsMeta-analyses graded as high to moderate quality indicate that in most patient populations no difference in mortality exists between patients assigned to a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019120503.

Dataset Information

Restrictive compared with liberal red cell transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusion

Publications

Restrictive compared with liberal red cell transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets