Dataset Information

Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Liver failure patients have traditionally been empirically transfused prior to invasive procedures. Blood transfusion is associated with immunologic and nonimmunologic reactions, increased risk of adverse outcomes and high costs. Scientific evidence supporting empirical transfusion is lacking, and the best approach for blood transfusion prior to invasive procedures in cirrhotic patients has not been established so far. The aim of this study is to compare three transfusion strategies (routine coagulation test-guided - ordinary or restrictive, or thromboelastometry-guided) prior to central venous catheterization in critically ill patients with cirrhosis.Design and setting: a double-blinded, parallel-group, single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial in a tertiary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.adults (aged 18 years or older) admitted to the intensive care unit with cirrhosis and an indication for central venous line insertion. Patients will be randomly assigned to three groups for blood transfusion strategy prior to central venous catheterization: standard coagulation tests-based, thromboelastometry-based, or restrictive. The primary efficacy endpoint will be the proportion of patients transfused with any blood product prior to central venous catheterization. The primary safety endpoint will be the incidence of major bleeding. Secondary endpoints will be the proportion of transfusion of fresh frozen plasma, platelets and cryoprecipitate; infused volume of blood products; hemoglobin and hematocrit before and after the procedure; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay; 28-day and hospital mortality; incidence of minor bleeding; transfusion-related adverse reactions; and cost analysis.This study will evaluate three strategies to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous line placement in severely ill patients with cirrhosis. We hypothesized that thromboelastometry-based and/or restrictive protocols are safe and would significantly reduce transfusion of blood products in this population, leading to a reduction in costs and transfusion-related adverse reactions. In this manner, this trial will add evidence in favor of reducing empirical transfusion in severely ill patients with coagulopathy.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02311985 . Retrospectively registered on 3 December 2014.

SUBMITTER: Rocha LL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5327508 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Rocha Leonardo Lima LL Pessoa Camila Menezes Souza CM Neto Ary Serpa AS do Prado Rogerio Ruscitto RR Silva Eliezer E de Almeida Marcio Dias MD Correa Thiago Domingos TD

Trials 20170227 1

<h4>Background</h4>Liver failure patients have traditionally been empirically transfused prior to invasive procedures. Blood transfusion is associated with immunologic and nonimmunologic reactions, increased risk of adverse outcomes and high costs. Scientific evidence supporting empirical transfusion is lacking, and the best approach for blood transfusion prior to invasive procedures in cirrhotic patients has not been established so far. The aim of this study is to compare three transfusion stra ...[more]

PMID: 28241780

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Blood transfusion is costly and associated with various medical risks. Studies in critically ill adult and pediatric patients suggest that implementation of more restrictive transfusion protocols based on lower threshold hemoglobin concentrations can be medically and economically advantageous. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of a hemoglobin threshold change in pediatric burn patients. METHODS:We implemented a change in hemoglobin threshold from 10 g/dL to 7 g/dL and compared data from patients before and after this protocol change in a retrospective review. Primary endpoints were hemoglobin concentration at baseline, before transfusion, and after transfusion; amount of blood product administered; and mortality. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of sepsis based on the American Burn Association physiological criteria for sepsis and mean number of septic days per patient. All endpoint analyses were adjusted for relevant clinical covariates via generalized additive models or Cox proportional hazard model. Statistical significance was accepted at p less than 0.05. RESULTS:Patient characteristics and baseline hemoglobin concentrations (pre, 13.5 g/dL; post, 13.3 g/dL; p > 0.05) were comparable between groups. The group transfused based on the more restrictive hemoglobin threshold had lower hemoglobin concentrations before and after transfusion throughout acute hospitalization, received lower volumes of blood during operations (pre, 1012 mL; post, 824 mL; p < 0.001) and on days without surgical procedures (pre, 602 mL; post, 353 mL; p < 0.001), and had a lower mortality (pre, 8.0%; post, 3.9%; mortality hazard decline, 0.55 [45%]; p < 0.05). Both groups had a comparable incidence of physiological sepsis, though the more restrictive threshold group had a lower number of sepsis days per patient. CONCLUSION:More restrictive transfusion protocols are safe and efficacious in pediatric burn patients. The associated reduction of transfused blood may lessen medical risks of blood transfusion and lower economic burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, level IV.

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:Background:When 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. Objective:The 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 Setting:Multinational noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 73 centers in 19 countries (2014-2017). Patients:Patients (~4800) undergoing planned cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Measurements:The 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 ?mol/L in the first 48 hours after surgery or ?50% in the first 7 days after surgery. Methods:We 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). Limitations:It 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. Results:Substudy results will be reported by the year 2018. Conclusions:This 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 Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov; clinical trial registration number NCT 02042898.

Project description:BackgroundUp to 40% of combat casualties with a truncal injury die of massive hemorrhage before reaching a surgeon. This hemorrhage can be prevented with damage control resuscitation (DCR) methods, which are focused on replacing shed whole blood by empirically transfusing blood components in a 1:1:1:1 ratio of platelets:fresh frozen plasma:erythrocytes:cryoprecipitate (PLT:FFP:RBC:CRYO). Measurement of hemostatic function with rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) may allow optimization of the type and quantity of blood products transfused. Our hypothesis was that incorporating ROTEM measurements into DCR methods at the US Role 3 hospital at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan would change the standard transfusion ratios of 1:1:1:1 to a product mix tailored specifically for the combat causality.MethodsThis retrospective study collected data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry to compare transfusion practices and outcomes before and after ROTEM deployment to Bagram Airfield. Over the course of six months, 134 trauma patients received a transfusion (pre-ROTEM) and 85 received a transfusion and underwent ROTEM testing (post-ROTEM). Trauma teams received instruction on ROTEM use and interpretation, with no provision of a specific transfusion protocol, to supplement their clinical judgment and practice.ResultsThe pre and post groups were not significantly different in terms of mortality, massive transfusion protocol activation, mean injury severity score, or coagulation measurements. Despite the difference in size, each group received an equal total number of transfusions. However, the post-ROTEM group received a significant increase in PLT and CRYO transfusions ratios, 4× and 2×, respectively.ConclusionThe introduction of ROTEM significantly improved adherence to DCR practices. The transfusion differences suggest that aggressive DCR without thromboelastometry data may result in reduced hemostatic support and underestimate the need for PLT and CRYO. Thus, future controlled trials should include ROTEM-guided coagulation management in trauma resuscitation.Level of evidenceTherapeutic, level IV.

Dataset Information

Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets