Dataset Information

Restrictive blood transfusion strategies and associated infection in orthopedic patients: a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: This study sought to evaluate whether restrictive blood transfusion strategies are associated with a risk of infection in orthopedic patients by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs with restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies were identified by searching Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from their inception to December 2014. Eight RCTs with infections as outcomes were included in the final analysis. According to the Jadad scale, all studies were considered to be of high quality. The pooled risk ratio [RR] for the association between transfusion strategy and infection was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.47-0.91; p?=?0.012), and the number of patients needed to treat to avoid an infection using a restrictive transfusion strategy was 62. No heterogeneity was observed. The sensitivity analysis indicated unstable results, and no significant publication bias was observed. This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates that restrictive transfusion strategies in orthopedic patients result in a significant reduction in infections compared with more liberal strategies.

SUBMITTER: Teng Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4549631 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Restrictive blood transfusion strategies and associated infection in orthopedic patients: a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials.

Teng Zhaowei Z Zhu Yun Y Liu Yugang Y Wei Guojun G Wang Shuangneng S Du Shaoliang S Zhang Xiguang X

Scientific reports 20150826

This study sought to evaluate whether restrictive blood transfusion strategies are associated with a risk of infection in orthopedic patients by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs with restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies were identified by searching Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from their inception to December 2014. Eight RCTs with infecti ...[more]

PMID: 26306601

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies remain controversial in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the prognostic benefits of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS:We identified randomized clinical trials through the 9th of December 2017 that investigated a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy versus a liberal transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Individual patient data from each study were collected. Meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A trial sequential analysis (TSA)-adjusted random-effects model was used to pool the results from the included studies for the primary outcomes. RESULTS:Seven trials involving a total of 8886 patients were included. The TSA evaluations suggested that this meta-analysis could draw firm negative results, and the data were sufficient. There was no evidence that the risk of 30-day mortality differed between the patients assigned to a restrictive blood cell transfusion strategy and a liberal transfusion strategy (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.24; p = 0.87). Furthermore, the study suggested that the restrictive transfusion strategy was not associated with significant increases in pulmonary morbidity (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; p = 0.44), postoperative infection (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.3; p = 0.58), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14; p = 0.71), acute myocardial infarction (OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; p = 0.78), or cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.30; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy was not inferior to the liberal strategy with respect to 30-day mortality, pulmonary morbidity, postoperative infection, cerebrovascular accidents, acute kidney injury, or acute myocardial infarction, and fewer red blood cells were transfused.

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: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

Restrictive blood transfusion strategies and associated infection in orthopedic patients: a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Restrictive blood transfusion strategies and associated infection in orthopedic patients: a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets