Dataset Information

Behaviour modification interventions to optimise red blood cell transfusion practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of behaviour modification interventions to promote restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS:Seven electronic databases were searched to January 2018. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies examining an intervention to modify healthcare providers' RBC transfusion practice in any healthcare setting were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:The primary outcome was the proportion of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of inappropriate transfusions, RBC units transfused per patient, in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), pretransfusion haemoglobin and healthcare costs. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and meta-regression was performed in cases of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's funnel plot. RESULTS:Eighty-four low to moderate quality studies were included: 3 were RCTs and 81 were non-randomised studies. Thirty-one studies evaluated a single intervention, 44 examined a multimodal intervention. The comparator in all studies was standard of care or historical control. In 33 non-randomised studies, use of an intervention was associated with reduced odds of transfusion (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71)), odds of inappropriate transfusion (OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.59)), RBC units/patient weighted mean difference (WMD: -0.50 units (95%?CI -0.85 to -0.16)), LOS (WMD: -1.14 days (95%?CI -2.12 to -0.16)) and pretransfusion haemoglobin (-0.28?g/dL (95%?CI -0.48 to -0.08)). There was no difference in odds of mortality (OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.02)). Protocol/algorithm and multimodal interventions were associated with the greatest decreases in the primary outcome. There was high heterogeneity among estimates and evidence for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS:The literature examining the impact of interventions on RBC transfusions is extensive, although most studies are non-randomised. Despite this, pooled analysis of 33 studies revealed improvement in the primary outcome. Future work needs to shift from asking, 'does it work?' to 'what works best and at what cost?' PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015024757.

SUBMITTER: Soril LJJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5961610 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Behaviour modification interventions to optimise red blood cell transfusion practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Soril Lesley J J LJJ Noseworthy Thomas W TW Dowsett Laura E LE Memedovich Katherine K Holitzki Hannah M HM Lorenzetti Diane L DL Stelfox Henry Thomas HT Zygun David A DA Clement Fiona M FM

BMJ open 20180518 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the impact of behaviour modification interventions to promote restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Setting, participants, interventions</h4>Seven electronic databases were searched to January 2018. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies examining an intervention to modify healthcare providers' RBC transfusion practice in any healthcare setting were included.<h4>Pr ...[more]

PMID: 29776919

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePacked red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions are used to treat anemia in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy (RT) owing to concerns of hypoxia-induced radioresistance. In the absence of high-quality evidence informing transfusion practices for patients receiving external beam RT (EBRT) and brachytherapy, various arbitrary hemoglobin target levels are used worldwide.ObjectiveTo develop consensus statements to guide PRBC transfusion practices in patients with cervical cancer receiving curative-intent RT with EBRT and brachytherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis international Delphi consensus study was completed between November 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020. A total of 63 international clinical experts in gynecologic radiation oncology were invited; 39 (62%) accepted and consented to participate. Consensus building was achieved using a 3-round anonymous Delphi consensus method. Participants rated their agreement or disagreement with statements using a 5-point Likert scale. An a priori threshold of 75% or more was required for consensus.Main outcomes and measuresThe preplanned primary outcome of this study was to assess hemoglobin transfusion thresholds and targets for both EBRT and brachytherapy by expert consensus.ResultsResponse rates of 100% (39 of 39), 92% (36 of 39), and 97% (35 of 36) were achieved for the first, second, and third rounds of surveys, respectively. Twenty-three experts (59%) practiced in Canada, 11 (28%) in the United States, 3 (8%) in South America, 1 (3%) in Europe, and 1 (3%) in Asia. Consensus was reached for 44 of 103 statements (43%), which were combined to form the final 27-statement consensus guideline. No specific hemoglobin transfusion threshold was agreed on by consensus for EBRT or brachytherapy. By consensus (89% [31 of 35]), a hemoglobin transfusion target for patients who receive a PRBC transfusion should be 9 g/dL or more and less than 12 g/dL.Conclusions and relevanceThis study presents the first international expert consensus guideline informing PRBC transfusion practices for patients with cervical cancer undergoing EBRT and brachytherapy. A minimum hemoglobin transfusion target of 9 g/dL was endorsed to balance tumor radiosensitivity with appropriate use of a scarce resource. Randomized clinical trials are required to evaluate the optimal transfusion threshold and target that maximize clinical benefit in this patient population.

Project description:ImportanceThe association between red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies and health care-associated infection is not fully understood.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether RBC transfusion thresholds are associated with the risk of infection and whether risk is independent of leukocyte reduction.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Sytematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number register were searched through January 22, 2014.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials with restrictive vs liberal RBC transfusion strategies.Data extraction and synthesisTwenty-one randomized trials with 8735 patients met eligibility criteria, of which 18 trials (n = 7593 patients) contained sufficient information for meta-analyses. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models were used to report pooled risk ratios. Absolute risks of infection were calculated using the profile likelihood random-effects method.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of health care-associated infection such as pneumonia, mediastinitis, wound infection, and sepsis.ResultsThe pooled risk of all serious infections was 11.8% (95% CI, 7.0%-16.7%) in the restrictive group and 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-25.4%) in the liberal group. The risk ratio (RR) for the association between transfusion strategies and serious infection was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.95) with little heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; τ2 <.0001). The number needed to treat (NNT) with restrictive strategies to prevent serious infection was 38 (95% CI, 24-122). The risk of infection remained reduced with a restrictive strategy, even with leukocyte reduction (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]). For trials with a restrictive hemoglobin threshold of <7.0 g/dL, the RR was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.70-0.97) with NNT of 20 (95% CI, 12-133). With stratification by patient type, the RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91) in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28-0.95) in patients presenting with sepsis. There were no significant differences in the incidence of infection by RBC threshold for patients with cardiac disease, the critically ill, those with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or for infants with low birth weight.Conclusions and relevanceAmong hospitalized patients, a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy was associated with a reduced risk of health care-associated infection compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Implementing restrictive strategies may have the potential to lower the incidence of health care-associated infection.

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

Behaviour modification interventions to optimise red blood cell transfusion practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Behaviour modification interventions to optimise red blood cell transfusion practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets