BACKGROUND: The benefit of blood transfusion in patients with myocardial infarction is controversial, and a possibility of harm exists. METHODS: A systematic search of studies published between January 1, 1966, and March 31, 2012, was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. English-language studies comparing blood transfusion with no blood transfusion or a liberal vs restricted blood transfusion strategy were identified. Two study authors independently reviewed 729 originally identified titles and abstracts and selected 10 for analysis. Study title, follow-up period, blood transfusion strategy, and mortality outcomes were extracted manually from all selected studies, and the quality of each study was assessed using the strengthening Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. RESULTS: Studies of blood transfusion strategy in anemia associated with myocardial infarction were abstracted, as well as all-cause mortality rates at the longest available follow-up periods for the individual studies. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Analyses of blood transfusion in myocardial infarction revealed increased all-cause mortality associated with a strategy of blood transfusion vs no blood transfusion during myocardial infarction (18.2% vs 10.2%) (risk ratio, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.46-3.44; P < .001), with a weighted absolute risk increase of 12% and a number needed to harm of 8 (95% CI, 6-17). Multivariate meta-regression revealed that blood transfusion was associated with a higher risk for mortality independent of baseline hemoglobin level, nadir hemoglobin level, and change in hemoglobin level during the hospital stay. Blood transfusion was also significantly associated with a higher risk for subsequent myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.06-3.93; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion or a liberal blood transfusion strategy compared with no blood transfusion or a restricted blood transfusion strategy is associated with higher all-cause mortality rates. A practice of routine or liberal blood transfusion in myocardial infarction should not be encouraged but requires investigation in a large trial with low risk for bias.
BACKGROUND: The benefit of blood transfusion in patients with myocardial infarction is controversial, and a possibility of harm exists. METHODS: A systematic search of studies published between January 1, 1966, and March 31, 2012, was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. English-language studies comparing blood transfusion with no blood transfusion or a liberal vs restricted blood transfusion strategy were identified. Two study authors independently reviewed 729 originally identified titles and abstracts and selected 10 for analysis. Study title, follow-up period, blood transfusion strategy, and mortality outcomes were extracted manually from all selected studies, and the quality of each study was assessed using the strengthening Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. RESULTS: Studies of blood transfusion strategy in anemia associated with myocardial infarction were abstracted, as well as all-cause mortality rates at the longest available follow-up periods for the individual studies. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Analyses of blood transfusion in myocardial infarction revealed increased all-cause mortality associated with a strategy of blood transfusion vs no blood transfusion during myocardial infarction (18.2% vs 10.2%) (risk ratio, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.46-3.44; P < .001), with a weighted absolute risk increase of 12% and a number needed to harm of 8 (95% CI, 6-17). Multivariate meta-regression revealed that blood transfusion was associated with a higher risk for mortality independent of baseline hemoglobin level, nadir hemoglobin level, and change in hemoglobin level during the hospital stay. Blood transfusion was also significantly associated with a higher risk for subsequent myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.06-3.93; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion or a liberal blood transfusion strategy compared with no blood transfusion or a restricted blood transfusion strategy is associated with higher all-cause mortality rates. A practice of routine or liberal blood transfusion in myocardial infarction should not be encouraged but requires investigation in a large trial with low risk for bias.
Authors: Jiangning Yang; Adrian T Gonon; Per-Ove Sjöquist; Jon O Lundberg; John Pernow Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gregory Ducrocq; Jose R Gonzalez-Juanatey; Etienne Puymirat; Gilles Lemesle; Marine Cachanado; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Joan Albert Arnaiz; Manuel Martínez-Sellés; Johanne Silvain; Albert Ariza-Solé; Emile Ferrari; Gonzalo Calvo; Nicolas Danchin; Cristina Avendaño-Solá; Jerome Frenkiel; Alexandra Rousseau; Eric Vicaut; Tabassome Simon; Philippe Gabriel Steg Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Maria Mori Brooks; J Dawn Abbott; Bernard Chaitman; Sheryl F Kelsey; Darrell J Triulzi; Vankeepuram Srinivas; Mark A Menegus; Oscar C Marroquin; Sunil V Rao; Helaine Noveck; Elizabeth Passano; Regina M Hardison; Thomas Smitherman; Tudor Vagaonescu; Neil J Wimmer; David O Williams Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 4.749