Literature DB >> 25270275

Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock.

Lars B Holst1, Nicolai Haase, Jørn Wetterslev, Jan Wernerman, Anne B Guttormsen, Sari Karlsson, Pär I Johansson, Anders Aneman, Marianne L Vang, Robert Winding, Lars Nebrich, Helle L Nibro, Bodil S Rasmussen, Johnny R M Lauridsen, Jane S Nielsen, Anders Oldner, Ville Pettilä, Maria B Cronhjort, Lasse H Andersen, Ulf G Pedersen, Nanna Reiter, Jørgen Wiis, Jonathan O White, Lene Russell, Klaus J Thornberg, Peter B Hjortrup, Rasmus G Müller, Morten H Møller, Morten Steensen, Inga Tjäder, Kristina Kilsand, Suzanne Odeberg-Wernerman, Brit Sjøbø, Helle Bundgaard, Maria A Thyø, David Lodahl, Rikke Mærkedahl, Carsten Albeck, Dorte Illum, Mary Kruse, Per Winkel, Anders Perner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions are frequently given to patients with septic shock. However, the benefits and harms of different hemoglobin thresholds for transfusion have not been established.
METHODS: In this multicenter, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who had septic shock and a hemoglobin concentration of 9 g per deciliter or less to receive 1 unit of leukoreduced red cells when the hemoglobin level was 7 g per deciliter or less (lower threshold) or when the level was 9 g per deciliter or less (higher threshold) during the ICU stay. The primary outcome measure was death by 90 days after randomization.
RESULTS: We analyzed data from 998 of 1005 patients (99.3%) who underwent randomization. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the ICU, the lower-threshold group received a median of 1 unit of blood (interquartile range, 0 to 3) and the higher-threshold group received a median of 4 units (interquartile range, 2 to 7). At 90 days after randomization, 216 of 502 patients (43.0%) assigned to the lower-threshold group, as compared with 223 of 496 (45.0%) assigned to the higher-threshold group, had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.44). The results were similar in analyses adjusted for risk factors at baseline and in analyses of the per-protocol populations. The numbers of patients who had ischemic events, who had severe adverse reactions, and who required life support were similar in the two intervention groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with septic shock, mortality at 90 days and rates of ischemic events and use of life support were similar among those assigned to blood transfusion at a higher hemoglobin threshold and those assigned to blood transfusion at a lower threshold; the latter group received fewer transfusions. (Funded by the Danish Strategic Research Council and others; TRISS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01485315.).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25270275     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1406617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  208 in total

1.  The Challenge and the Promise of Studying Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Humans with Sepsis.

Authors:  Michael A Puskarich
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2015-11

Review 2.  Leucoreduction of blood components: an effective way to increase blood safety?

Authors:  Maria Bianchi; Stefania Vaglio; Simonetta Pupella; Giuseppe Marano; Giuseppina Facco; Giancarlo M Liumbruno; Giuliano Grazzini
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 3.443

Review 3.  [Therapy with blood products].

Authors:  S Petros
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 0.840

4.  Should blood transfusion be individualised? We are not sure.

Authors:  Annemarie Docherty; Timothy S Walsh
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Testing current practice is no mistake.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Nicolai Haase; Jørn Wetterslev; Lars B Holst
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  [Mortality after high-risk surgery in Jehovah's Witness patients].

Authors:  O Habler; M Thörner; C Schmidt; P Hofmann; U Döbert; M Höhler; S Klingler; S Moog; A Oehme; M Schäufele; C Wege; B Voß
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 1.041

7.  Evaluation of RBC Transfusion Practice in Adult ICUs and the Effect of Restrictive Transfusion Protocols on Routine Care.

Authors:  Kevin P Seitz; Jonathan E Sevransky; Greg S Martin; John D Roback; David J Murphy
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 8.  The Intensive Care Medicine research agenda on critically ill oncology and hematology patients.

Authors:  Elie Azoulay; Peter Schellongowski; Michael Darmon; Philippe R Bauer; Dominique Benoit; Pieter Depuydt; Jigeeshu V Divatia; Virginie Lemiale; Maarten van Vliet; Anne-Pascale Meert; Djamel Mokart; Stephen M Pastores; Anders Perner; Frédéric Pène; Peter Pickkers; Kathryn A Puxty; Francois Vincent; Jorge Salluh; Ayman O Soubani; Massimo Antonelli; Thomas Staudinger; Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Marcio Soares
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Sepsis: frontiers in diagnosis, resuscitation and antibiotic therapy.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Anthony C Gordon; Daniel De Backer; George Dimopoulos; James A Russell; Jeffrey Lipman; Jens-Ulrik Jensen; John Myburgh; Mervyn Singer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Timothy Walsh
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 10.  Septic Shock: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.

Authors:  Christopher W Seymour; Matthew R Rosengart
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.