A Perner1, S H Smith, S Carlsen, L B Holst. 1. Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. anders.perner@rh.regionh.dk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) remains controversial in patients with septic shock, but current practice is unknown. Our aim was to evaluate RBC transfusion practice in septic shock in the intensive care unit (ICU), and patient characteristics and outcome associated with RBC transfusion. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of all adult patients with septic shock (n = 164) in six general ICUs during a 3-month period. Characteristics, other treatments, monitoring and outcome were compared in RBC-transfused and -non-transfused patients. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (95% confidence interval 87-111) received a median 900 ml (interquartile range 490-1405) of RBC during septic shock in ICU. Among transfused patients, there were more females [49/99 (49%) vs. 22/65 (34%), P = 0.048] and surgical patients [39/99 (39%) vs. 14/65 (22%), P = 0.02] than among patients not transfused. Also, admission simplified acute physiology score II was higher and minimal haemoglobin levels (days 1-3) were lower in transfused patients compared with those not transfused. In contrast, age, markers of shock and severity organ failure assessment score on day 1 and 90-day mortality did not differ between RBC-transfused and -non-transfused patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with septic shock received RBCs during shock, and these patients had higher disease severity and lower haemoglobin levels than those not transfused. In spite of this, mortality did not differ between groups neither in the unadjusted or adjusted analyses. However, neither the design nor the sample size allows us to make inferences about treatment effects, which underlines the need for large randomised, clinical trials on transfusion in septic shock.
BACKGROUND: Transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) remains controversial in patients with septic shock, but current practice is unknown. Our aim was to evaluate RBC transfusion practice in septic shock in the intensive care unit (ICU), and patient characteristics and outcome associated with RBC transfusion. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of all adult patients with septic shock (n = 164) in six general ICUs during a 3-month period. Characteristics, other treatments, monitoring and outcome were compared in RBC-transfused and -non-transfused patients. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (95% confidence interval 87-111) received a median 900 ml (interquartile range 490-1405) of RBC during septic shock in ICU. Among transfused patients, there were more females [49/99 (49%) vs. 22/65 (34%), P = 0.048] and surgical patients [39/99 (39%) vs. 14/65 (22%), P = 0.02] than among patients not transfused. Also, admission simplified acute physiology score II was higher and minimal haemoglobin levels (days 1-3) were lower in transfused patients compared with those not transfused. In contrast, age, markers of shock and severity organ failure assessment score on day 1 and 90-day mortality did not differ between RBC-transfused and -non-transfused patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with septic shock received RBCs during shock, and these patients had higher disease severity and lower haemoglobin levels than those not transfused. In spite of this, mortality did not differ between groups neither in the unadjusted or adjusted analyses. However, neither the design nor the sample size allows us to make inferences about treatment effects, which underlines the need for large randomised, clinical trials on transfusion in septic shock.
Authors: Lene Russell; Lars Broksø Holst; Lars Kjeldsen; Jakob Stensballe; Anders Perner Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Lars B Holst; Nicolai Haase; Jørn Wetterslev; Jan Wernerman; Anders Aneman; Anne B Guttormsen; Pär I Johansson; Sari Karlsson; Gudmundur Klemenzson; Robert Winding; Lars Nebrich; Carsten Albeck; Marianne L Vang; Hans-Henrik Bülow; Jeanie M Elkjær; Jane S Nielsen; Peter Kirkegaard; Helle Nibro; Anne Lindhardt; Ditte Strange; Katrin Thormar; Lone M Poulsen; Pawel Berezowicz; Per M Bådstøløkken; Kristian Strand; Maria Cronhjort; Elsebeth Haunstrup; Omar Rian; Anders Oldner; Asger Bendtsen; Susanne Iversen; Jørn-Åge Langva; Rasmus B Johansen; Niklas Nielsen; Ville Pettilä; Matti Reinikainen; Dorte Keld; Siv Leivdal; Jan-Michael Breider; Inga Tjäder; Nanna Reiter; Ulf Gøttrup; Jonathan White; Jørgen Wiis; Lasse Høgh Andersen; Morten Steensen; Anders Perner Journal: Trials Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ragnhild G Rosland; Marte U Hagen; Nicolai Haase; Lars B Holst; Morten Plambech; Kristian R Madsen; Peter Søe-Jensen; Lone M Poulsen; Morten Bestle; Anders Perner Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Abele Donati; Elisa Damiani; Michele Luchetti; Roberta Domizi; Claudia Scorcella; Andrea Carsetti; Vincenzo Gabbanelli; Paola Carletti; Rosella Bencivenga; Hans Vink; Erica Adrario; Michael Piagnerelli; Armando Gabrielli; Paolo Pelaia; Can Ince Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-02-17 Impact factor: 9.097