Dataset Information

Liberal versus restrictive blood transfusion strategy: 3-year survival and cause of death results from the FOCUS randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Blood transfusion might affect long-term mortality by changing immune function and thus potentially increasing the risk of subsequent infections and cancer recurrence. Compared with a restrictive transfusion strategy, a more liberal strategy could reduce cardiac complications by lowering myocardial damage, thereby reducing future deaths from cardiovascular disease. We aimed to establish the effect of a liberal transfusion strategy on long-term survival compared with a restrictive transfusion strategy.In the randomised controlled FOCUS trial, adult patients aged 50 years and older, with a history of or risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and with postoperative haemoglobin concentrations lower than 100 g/L within 3 days of surgery to repair a hip fracture, were eligible for enrolment. Patients were recruited from 47 participating hospitals in the USA and Canada, and eligible participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio by a central telephone system to either liberal transfusion in which they received blood transfusion to maintain haemoglobin level at 100 g/L or higher, or restrictive transfusion in which they received blood transfusion when haemoglobin level was lower than 80 g/L or if they had symptoms of anaemia. In this study, we analysed the long-term mortality of patients assigned to the two transfusion strategies, which was a secondary outcome of the FOCUS trial. Long-term mortality was established by linking the study participants to national death registries in the USA and Canada. Treatment assignment was not masked, but investigators who ascertained mortality and cause of death were masked to group assignment. Analyses were by intention to treat. The FOCUS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00071032.Between July 19, 2004, and Feb 28, 2009, 2016 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 1007 to the liberal transfusion strategy and 1009 to the restrictive transfusion strategy. The median duration of follow-up was 3·1 years (IQR 2·4-4·1 years), during which 841 (42%) patients died. Long-term mortality did not differ significantly between the liberal transfusion strategy (432 deaths) and the restrictive transfusion strategy (409 deaths) (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·95-1·25]; p=0·21).Liberal blood transfusion did not affect mortality compared with a restrictive transfusion strategy in a high-risk group of elderly patients with underlying cardiovascular disease or risk factors. The underlying causes of death did not differ between the trial groups. These findings do not support hypotheses that blood transfusion leads to long-term immunosuppression that is severe enough to affect long-term mortality rate by more than 20-25% or cause of death.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

SUBMITTER: Carson JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4498804 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Liberal versus restrictive blood transfusion strategy: 3-year survival and cause of death results from the FOCUS randomised controlled trial.

Carson Jeffrey L JL Sieber Frederick F Cook Donald Richard DR Hoover Donald R DR Noveck Helaine H Chaitman Bernard R BR Fleisher Lee L Beaupre Lauren L Macaulay William W Rhoads George G GG Paris Barbara B Zagorin Aleksandra A Sanders David W DW Zakriya Khwaja J KJ Magaziner Jay J

Lancet (London, England) 20141209 9974

<h4>Background</h4>Blood transfusion might affect long-term mortality by changing immune function and thus potentially increasing the risk of subsequent infections and cancer recurrence. Compared with a restrictive transfusion strategy, a more liberal strategy could reduce cardiac complications by lowering myocardial damage, thereby reducing future deaths from cardiovascular disease. We aimed to establish the effect of a liberal transfusion strategy on long-term survival compared with a restrict ...[more]

PMID: 25499165

Similar Datasets

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: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%, ?2?=?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:BackgroundBone marrow failure disorders include a heterogenous group of disorders, of which myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), forms the largest subgroup. MDS is predominantly a disease of the elderly, with many elderly people managed conservatively with regular allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat their anaemia. However, RBC transfusions are not without risk. Despite regular transfusions playing a central role in treating such patients, the optimal RBC transfusion strategy (restrictive versus liberal) is currently unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of a restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy for patients with myelodysplasia, acquired aplastic anaemia, and other inherited bone marrow failure disorders.Search methodsWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid EMBASE (from 1974), EBSCO CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to 26th May 2015.Selection criteriaRCTs including patients with long-term bone marrow failure disorders that require allogeneic blood transfusion, who are not being actively treated with a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, or intensive chemotherapy.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane review methodology. One author initially screened all references, and excluded any that were clearly irrelevant or duplicates. Two authors then independently screened all abstracts of articles, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant articles for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool.Main resultsWe included one trial (13 participants) and identified three ongoing trials that assess RBC transfusion strategies in people with MDS.The quality of the evidence was very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.The one included study randomised participants to a restrictive [haemoglobin (Hb) transfusion trigger < 72 g/L, 8 participants] or liberal [Hb trigger < 96 g/L, 5 participants] transfusion policy. There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in all-cause mortality (1 RCT; 13 participants; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.32; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in the number of red blood cell transfusions (1 RCT; 13 participants; 1.8 units per patient per month in the liberal group, compared to 0.8 in the restrictive arm, no standard deviation was reported; very low quality evidence). There were no anaemia-related complications reported (cardiac failure) and no reported effect on activity levels (no statistics provided). The study did not report: mortality due to bleeding/infection/transfusion reactions or iron overload, quality of life, frequency and length of hospital admissions, serious infections (requiring admission to hospital), or serious bleeding (e.g. WHO/CTCAE grade 3 (or equivalent) or above).Authors' conclusionsThis review indicates that there is currently a lack of evidence for the recommendation of a particular transfusion strategy for bone marrow failure patients undergoing supportive treatment only. The one RCT included in this review was only published as an abstract and contained only 13 participants. Further randomised trials with robust methodology are required to develop the optimal transfusion strategy for such patients, particularly as the incidence of the main group of bone marrow failure disorders, MDS, rises with an ageing population.

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.

Dataset Information

Liberal versus restrictive blood transfusion strategy: 3-year survival and cause of death results from the FOCUS randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Liberal versus restrictive blood transfusion strategy: 3-year survival and cause of death results from the FOCUS randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets