OBJECTIVE: To carry out a systematic review of recently published large-scale observational studies assessing the effects of red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) on mortality, with particular emphasis on the statistical methods used to adjust for confounding. Given the limited number of randomised trials of the efficacy of RBCT, clinicians often use evidence from observational studies. However, confounding factors, for example, individuals receiving blood generally being sicker than those who do not, make their interpretation challenging. DESIGN: Systematic review. INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies published from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2010. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES: We included prospective cohort, case-control studies or retrospective analyses of databases or disease registers where the effect of risk factors for mortality or survival was examined. Studies must have included more than 1000 participants receiving RBCT for any cause. We assessed the effects of RBCT versus no RBCT and different volumes and age of RBCT. RESULTS: -32 studies were included in the review; 23 assessed the effects of RBCT versus no RBCT; 5 assessed different volumes and 4 older versus newer RBCT. There was a considerable variability in the patient populations, study designs and level of statistical adjustment. Overall, most studies showed a higher rate of mortality when comparing patients who received RBCT with those who did not, even when these rates were adjusted for confounding; the majority of these increases were statistically significant. The same pattern was observed in studies where protection from bias was likely to be greater, such as prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent observational studies do show a consistently adverse effect of RBCT on mortality. Whether this is a true effect remains uncertain as it is possible that even the best conducted adjustments cannot completely eliminate the impact of confounding.
OBJECTIVE: To carry out a systematic review of recently published large-scale observational studies assessing the effects of red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) on mortality, with particular emphasis on the statistical methods used to adjust for confounding. Given the limited number of randomised trials of the efficacy of RBCT, clinicians often use evidence from observational studies. However, confounding factors, for example, individuals receiving blood generally being sicker than those who do not, make their interpretation challenging. DESIGN: Systematic review. INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies published from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2010. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES: We included prospective cohort, case-control studies or retrospective analyses of databases or disease registers where the effect of risk factors for mortality or survival was examined. Studies must have included more than 1000 participants receiving RBCT for any cause. We assessed the effects of RBCT versus no RBCT and different volumes and age of RBCT. RESULTS: -32 studies were included in the review; 23 assessed the effects of RBCT versus no RBCT; 5 assessed different volumes and 4 older versus newer RBCT. There was a considerable variability in the patient populations, study designs and level of statistical adjustment. Overall, most studies showed a higher rate of mortality when comparing patients who received RBCT with those who did not, even when these rates were adjusted for confounding; the majority of these increases were statistically significant. The same pattern was observed in studies where protection from bias was likely to be greater, such as prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent observational studies do show a consistently adverse effect of RBCT on mortality. Whether this is a true effect remains uncertain as it is possible that even the best conducted adjustments cannot completely eliminate the impact of confounding.
Authors: Colleen Gorman Koch; Liang Li; Andra I Duncan; Tomislav Mihaljevic; Floyd D Loop; Norman J Starr; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Wen-Chih Wu; Tracy S Smith; William G Henderson; Charles B Eaton; Roy M Poses; Georgette Uttley; Vincent Mor; Satish C Sharma; Michael Vezeridis; Shukri F Khuri; Peter D Friedmann Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jacques Lacroix; Paul Hébert; Dean Fergusson; Alan Tinmouth; Morris A Blajchman; Jeannie Callum; Deborah Cook; John C Marshall; Lauralyn McIntyre; Alexis F Turgeon Journal: Transfus Med Rev Date: 2011-05-06
Authors: Agnes Dechartres; Isabelle Boutron; Ludovic Trinquart; Pierre Charles; Philippe Ravaud Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jordan A Weinberg; Gerald McGwin; Russell L Griffin; Vu Q Huynh; Samuel A Cherry; Marisa B Marques; Donald A Reiff; Jeffrey D Kerby; Loring W Rue Journal: J Trauma Date: 2008-08
Authors: Dean A Fergusson; Paul Hébert; Debora L Hogan; Louise LeBel; Nicole Rouvinez-Bouali; John A Smyth; Koravangattu Sankaran; Alan Tinmouth; Morris A Blajchman; Lajos Kovacs; Christian Lachance; Shoo Lee; C Robin Walker; Brian Hutton; Robin Ducharme; Katelyn Balchin; Tim Ramsay; Jason C Ford; Ashok Kakadekar; Kuppuchipalayam Ramesh; Stan Shapiro Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D Robert Siemens; Melanie T Jaeger; Xuejiao Wei; Francisco Vera-Badillo; Christopher M Booth Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Amy E DeZern; Katherine Williams; Marianna Zahurak; Wesley Hand; R Scott Stephens; Karen E King; Steven M Frank; Paul M Ness Journal: Transfusion Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: N Beattie; J F Maempel; S Roberts; H B Waterson; G Brown; I J Brenkel; P J Walmsley Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 1.891