Dataset Information

Risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD): a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: AIM:To evaluate the risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies (haemoglobin 7-8 g?dL-1 ) in patients with and without known cardiovascular disease (CVD). BACKGROUND:Recent guidelines recommend restrictive strategies for CVD patients hospitalised for non-CVD indications, patients without known CVD and patients hospitalised for CVD corrective procedures. METHODS/MATERIALS:Database searches were conducted through December 2017 for randomised clinical trials that enrolled patients with and without known CVD, hospitalised either for CVD-corrective procedures or non-cardiac indications, comparing effects of liberal with restrictive strategies on major adverse coronary events (MACE) and death. RESULTS:In CVD patients not undergoing cardiac interventions, a liberal strategy decreased (P?=?0·01) the relative risk (95% CI) (RR) of MACE [0·50 (0·29-0·86)] (I2 =?0%). Among patients without known CVD, the incidence of MACE was lower (1·7 vs 3·9%), and the effect of a liberal strategy on MACE [0·79, (0·39-1·58)] was smaller and non-significant but not different from CVD patients (P?=?0·30). Combining all CVD and non-CVD patients, a liberal strategy decreased MACE [0·59, (0·39-0·91); P?=?0·02]. Conversely, among studies reporting mortality, a liberal strategy decreased mortality in CVD patients (11·7% vs·13·3%) but increased mortality (19·2% vs 18·0%) in patients without known CVD [interaction P?=?0·05; ratio of RR 0·73, (0·53-1·00)]. A liberal strategy also did not benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery; data were insufficient for percutaneous cardiac procedures. CONCLUSIONS:In patients hospitalised for non-cardiac indications, liberal transfusion strategies are associated with a decreased risk of MACE in both those with and without known CVD. However, this only provides a survival benefit to CVD patients not admitted for CVD-corrective procedures.

SUBMITTER: Cortes-Puch I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6186511 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD): a meta-analysis.

Cortés-Puch I I Wiley B M BM Sun J J Klein H G HG Welsh J J Danner R L RL Eichacker P Q PQ Natanson C C

Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) 20180419 5

<h4>Aim</h4>To evaluate the risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies (haemoglobin 7-8 g dL<sup>-1</sup> ) in patients with and without known cardiovascular disease (CVD).<h4>Background</h4>Recent guidelines recommend restrictive strategies for CVD patients hospitalised for non-CVD indications, patients without known CVD and patients hospitalised for CVD corrective procedures.<h4>Methods/materials</h4>Database searches were conducted through December 2017 for randomised clinical ...[more]

PMID: 29675833

Similar Datasets

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: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: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:BackgroundThe efficacies of fresh frozen plasma and coagulation factor transfusion have been widely evaluated in trauma-induced coagulopathy management during the acute post-injury phase. However, the efficacy of red blood cell transfusion has not been adequately investigated in patients with severe trauma, and the optimal hemoglobin target level during the acute post-injury and resuscitation phases remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy was clinically non-inferior to a liberal transfusion strategy during the acute post-injury phase.MethodsThis cluster-randomized, crossover, non-inferiority multicenter trial was conducted at 22 tertiary emergency medical institutions in Japan and included adult patients with severe trauma at risk of major bleeding. The institutions were allocated a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy (target hemoglobin levels: 7-9 or 10-12 g/dL, respectively). The strategies were applied to patients immediately after arrival at the emergency department. The primary outcome was 28-day survival after arrival at the emergency department. Secondary outcomes included transfusion volume, complication rates, and event-free days. The non-inferiority margin was set at 3%.ResultsThe 28-day survival rates of patients in the restrictive (n = 216) and liberal (n = 195) strategy groups were 92.1% and 91.3%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for 28-day survival in the restrictive versus liberal strategy group was 1.02 (95% confidence interval: 0.49-2.13). Significant non-inferiority was not observed. Transfusion volumes and hemoglobin levels were lower in the restrictive strategy group than in the liberal strategy group. No between-group differences were noted in complication rates or event-free days.ConclusionsAlthough non-inferiority of the restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy for 28-day survival was not statistically significant, the mortality and complication rates were similar between the groups. The restrictive transfusion strategy results in a lower transfusion volume.Trial registration numberumin.ac.jp/ctr: UMIN000034405, registration date: 8 October 2018.

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: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).

Dataset Information

Risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD): a meta-analysis.

Publications

Risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD): a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets