Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Appropriateness of Blood Transfusion in China.

ABSTRACT: The issue of the clinical appropriateness of blood transfusion has become a focus of transfusion medicine worldwide. In China, irrational uses of blood have often been reported in recent years. However, to date there lacks a systematic review of the rational uses of blood. This study aimed to determine the clinical appropriateness of blood transfusion in China. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database, WanFang Database, and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and the retrieval cut-off date was June 31, 2015. SPSS 17.0 and MetaAnalyst 3.13 were employed as the statistics tools in this review. A pooled rate of clinical inappropriateness of transfusion was analyzed by DerSimonian-Laird method. In this study, a total of 39 observational studies were included, which related to 75,132 cases of blood transfusion. According to the meta-analysis results, the overall incidence of clinical inappropriateness of transfusion in China was estimated to be 37.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] [32.1, 42.8]). The subgroup analyses revealed that the pooled rates of clinical inappropriateness of transfusion of plasma, red blood cells (RBCs), cryoprecipitate, and platelets were 56.3% (95% CI [45.8, 66.2]), 30.9% (95% CI [27.1, 35.0]), 25.2% (95% CI [13.2, 42.7]), and 14.1% (95% CI [8.8, 21.9]), respectively. However, the pooled incidence of inappropriateness of transfusion in operative departments was 47.5% (95% CI [36.8, 58.3]), which was significantly higher than that in nonoperative departments, 25.8% (95% CI [18.7, 34.4], P??0.05). In conclusion, China has suffered from a disadvantage in the clinical appropriateness of blood transfusion, especially in plasma and RBC use. In future, comprehensive measures should be implemented in order to improve the clinical appropriateness of blood transfusion.

SUBMITTER: Zhu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5058897 | biostudies-other | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Appropriateness of Blood Transfusion in China.

Zhu Changtai C Gao Yulu Y Li Zhiqiang Z Li Qinyun Q Gao Zongshuai Z Liao Yanqiu Y Deng Zhifeng Z

Medicine 20151201 50

The issue of the clinical appropriateness of blood transfusion has become a focus of transfusion medicine worldwide. In China, irrational uses of blood have often been reported in recent years. However, to date there lacks a systematic review of the rational uses of blood. This study aimed to determine the clinical appropriateness of blood transfusion in China. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology J ...[more]

PMID: 26683925

Similar Datasets

Project description:The association between red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies and health care-associated infection is not fully understood.To evaluate whether RBC transfusion thresholds are associated with the risk of infection and whether risk is independent of leukocyte reduction.MEDLINE, 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.Randomized clinical trials with restrictive vs liberal RBC transfusion strategies.Twenty-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.Incidence of health care-associated infection such as pneumonia, mediastinitis, wound infection, and sepsis.The 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%; ?2 <.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.Among 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.

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous iron, focusing primarily on its effects on haemoglobin, requirement for transfusion, and risk of infection.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating the safety and efficacy of intravenous iron therapy.Data sourcesRandomised controlled trials from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1966 to June 2013, with no language restrictions.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible trials were randomised controlled trials of intravenous iron compared with either no iron or oral iron. Crossover and observational studies were excluded.Main outcome measuresChange in haemoglobin concentration and risk of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (efficacy) and risk of infection (safety).ResultsOf the 75 trials meeting the inclusion criteria, 72 studies including 10 605 patients provided quantitative outcome data for meta-analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increase in haemoglobin concentration (standardised mean difference 6.5 g/L, 95% confidence interval 5.1 g/L to 7.9 g/L) and a reduced risk of requirement for red blood cell transfusion (risk ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.88), especially when intravenous iron was used with erythroid stimulating agents (ESAs) or in patients with a lower baseline plasma ferritin concentration. There were no significant interactions between the efficacy of intravenous iron and type or dose administered. Intravenous iron was, however, associated with a significant increase in risk of infection (relative risk 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.64) compared with oral or no iron supplementation. The results remained similar when only high quality trials were analysed.ConclusionsIntravenous iron therapy is effective in increasing haemoglobin concentration and reducing the risk of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and could have broad applicability to a range of acute care settings. This potential benefit is counterbalanced by a potential increased risk of infection.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Appropriateness of Blood Transfusion in China.

Publications

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Appropriateness of Blood Transfusion in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure