Dataset Information

Restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial: a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, crossover non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Resuscitation using blood products is critical during the acute postinjury period. However, the optimal target haemoglobin (Hb) levels have not been adequately investigated. With the restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial, we aim to compare the restrictive and liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority trial of patients with severe trauma at 22 hospitals that have been randomised in a 1:1 ratio based on the use of a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy with target Hb levels of 70-90 or 100-120?g/L, respectively, during the first year. Subsequently, after 1-month washout period, another transfusion strategy will be applied for an additional year. RBC transfusion requirements are usually unclear on arrival at the emergency department. Therefore, patients with severe bleeding, which could lead to haemorrhagic shock, will be included in the trial based on the attending physician's judgement. Each RBC transfusion strategy will be applied until 7 days postadmission to the hospital or discharge from the intensive care unit. The outcomes measured will include the 28-day survival rate after arrival at the emergency department (primary), the cumulative amount of blood transfused, event-free days and frequency of transfusion-associated lung injury and organ failure (secondary). Demonstration of the non-inferiority of restrictive transfusion will emphasise its clinical advantages. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The trial will be performed according to the Japanese and International Ethical guidelines. It has been approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating hospital and The Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma (JAST). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients or their representatives. The results of the trial will be disseminated to the participating hospitals and board-certified educational institutions of JAST, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication, and presented at congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000034405. Registered 8 October 2018.

SUBMITTER: Hayakawa M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7478023 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial: a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, crossover non-inferiority trial.

Hayakawa Mineji M Tagami Takashi T IIjima Hiroaki H Kudo Daisuke D Sekine Kazuhiko K Ogura Takayuki T Yumoto Tetsuya T Kondo Yutaka Y Endo Akira A Ito Kaori K Matsumura Yosuke Y Kushimoto Shigeki S

BMJ open 20200906 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Resuscitation using blood products is critical during the acute postinjury period. However, the optimal target haemoglobin (Hb) levels have not been adequately investigated. With the restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial, we aim to compare the restrictive and liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>This is a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority trial of patients with severe trauma a ...[more]

PMID: 32895281

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.

Project description:BackgroundA strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level.MethodsIn this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days.ResultsA total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49).ConclusionsIn patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).

Project description:There is a lack of evidence evaluating cryoprecipitate transfusion in severe postpartum haemorrhage. We performed a pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility of a trial on early cryoprecipitate delivery in severe postpartum haemorrhage. Pregnant women (>24 weeks gestation), actively bleeding within 24 h of delivery and who required at least one unit of red blood cells were eligible. Women declining transfusion in advance or with inherited clotting deficiencies were not eligible. Four UK hospitals were randomly allocated to deliver either the intervention (administration of two pools of cryoprecipitate within 90 min of first red blood cell unit requested plus standard care), or the control group treatment (standard care, where cryoprecipitate is administered later or not at all). The primary outcome was the proportion of women who received early cryoprecipitate (intervention) vs. standard care (control). Secondary outcomes included consent rates, acceptability of the intervention, safety outcomes and preliminary clinical outcome data to inform a definitive trial. Between March 2019 and January 2020, 199 participants were recruited; 19 refused consent, leaving 180 for analysis (110 in the intervention and 70 in the control group). Adherence to assigned treatment was 32% (95%CI 23-41%) in the intervention group vs. 81% (95%CI 70-90%) in the control group. The proportion of women receiving cryoprecipitate at any time-point was higher in the intervention (60%) vs. control (31%) groups; the former had fewer red blood cell transfusions at 24 h (mean difference -0.6 units, 95%CI -1.2 to 0); overall surgical procedures (odds ratio 0.6, 95%CI 0.3-1.1); and intensive care admissions (odds ratio 0.4, 95%CI 0.1-1.1). There was no increase in serious adverse or thrombotic events in the intervention group. Staff interviews showed that lack of awareness and uncertainty about study responsibilities contributed to lower adherence in the intervention group. We conclude that a full-scale trial may be feasible, provided that protocol revisions are put in place to establish clear lines of communication for ordering early cryoprecipitate in order to improve adherence. Preliminary clinical outcomes associated with cryoprecipitate administration are encouraging and merit further investigation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether secondary prevention, which preemptively treats women with above-average postpartum bleeding, is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis.DesignA cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial.SettingHealth sub-centres and home deliveries in the Bijapur district of Karnataka, India.PopulationWomen with low-risk pregnancies who were eligible for delivery with an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at home or sub-centre and who consented to be part of the study.MethodsAuxiliary Nurse Midwifes were randomised to secondary prevention using 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol administered to women with postpartum blood loss ≥350 ml or to universal prophylaxis using 600 mcg oral misoprostol administered to all women during the third stage of labour.Main outcome measuresPostpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl, mean postpartum blood loss and postpartum haemoglobin, postpartum haemorrhage rate, transfer to higher-level facilities, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.ResultsMisoprostol was administered to 99.7% of women as primary prevention. In secondary prevention, 92 (4.7%) women had postpartum bleeding ≥350 ml, of which 90 (97.8%) received misoprostol. The proportion of women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl was 5.9 and 8.8% in secondary and primary prevention clusters, respectively [difference -2.9%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) <1.3%]. Postpartum transfer and haemorrhage rates were low (<1%) in both groups. Shivering was more common in primary prevention clusters (P = 0.013).ConclusionSecondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis based on the primary outcome of postpartum haemoglobin. Secondary prevention could be a good alternative to universal prophylaxis as it medicates fewer women and is an acceptable and feasible strategy at the community level.Tweetable abstractSecondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis.

Dataset Information

Restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial: a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, crossover non-inferiority trial.

Publications

Restrictive transfusion strategy for critically injured patients (RESTRIC) trial: a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, crossover non-inferiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets