Literature DB >> 25956718

Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial.

Vipul Jairath1, Brennan C Kahan2, Alasdair Gray3, Caroline J Doré2, Ana Mora4, Martin W James5, Adrian J Stanley6, Simon M Everett7, Adam A Bailey8, Helen Dallal9, John Greenaway9, Ivan Le Jeune10, Melanie Darwent11, Nicholas Church12, Ian Reckless13, Renate Hodge4, Claire Dyer4, Sarah Meredith2, Charlotte Llewelyn4, Kelvin R Palmer14, Richard F Logan5, Simon P Travis8, Timothy S Walsh15, Michael F Murphy16.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transfusion thresholds for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding are controversial. So far, only three small, underpowered studies and one single-centre trial have been done. Findings from the single-centre trial showed reduced mortality with restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. We aimed to assess whether a multicentre, cluster randomised trial is a feasible method to substantiate or refute this finding.
METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial, done in six university hospitals in the UK, we enrolled all patients aged 18 years or older with new presentations of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, irrespective of comorbidity, except for exsanguinating haemorrhage. We randomly assigned hospitals (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation sequence (random permuted block size of 6, without stratification or matching) to either a restrictive (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 80 g/L) or liberal (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 100 g/L) RBC transfusion policy. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, protocol adherence, haemoglobin concentration, RBC exposure, selection bias, and information to guide design and economic evaluation of the phase 3 trial. Main exploratory clinical outcomes were further bleeding and mortality at day 28. We did analyses on all enrolled patients for whom an outcome was available. This trial is registered, ISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532.
FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2012, and March 1, 2013, we enrolled 936 patients across six hospitals (403 patients in three hospitals with a restrictive policy and 533 patients in three hospitals with a liberal policy). Recruitment rate was significantly higher for the liberal than for the restrictive policy (62% vs 55%; p=0·04). Despite some baseline imbalances, Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were identical between policies. Protocol adherence was 96% (SD 10) in the restrictive policy vs 83% (25) in the liberal policy (difference 14%; 95% CI 7-21; p=0·005). Mean last recorded haemoglobin concentration was 116 (SD 24) g/L for patients on the restrictive policy and 118 (20) g/L for those on the liberal policy (difference -2·0 [95% CI -12·0 to 7·0]; p=0·50). Fewer patients received RBCs on the restrictive policy than on the liberal policy (restrictive policy 133 [33%] vs liberal policy 247 [46%]; difference -12% [95% CI -35 to 11]; p=0·23), with fewer RBC units transfused (mean 1·2 [SD 2·1] vs 1·9 [2·8]; difference -0·7 [-1·6 to 0·3]; p=0·12), although these differences were not significant. We noted no significant difference in clinical outcomes.
INTERPRETATION: A cluster randomised design led to rapid recruitment, high protocol adherence, separation in degree of anaemia between groups, and non-significant reduction in RBC transfusion in the restrictive policy. A large cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is both feasible and essential before clinical practice guidelines change to recommend restrictive transfusion for all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. FUNDING: NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25956718     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61999-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  44 in total

Review 1.  Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support.

Authors:  Lise J Estcourt; Reem Malouf; Marialena Trivella; Dean A Fergusson; Sally Hopewell; Michael F Murphy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-01-27

Review 2.  Red blood cell transfusion policy: a critical literature review.

Authors:  Massimo Franchini; Giuseppe Marano; Carlo Mengoli; Simonetta Pupella; Stefania Vaglio; Manuel Muñoz; Giancarlo M Liumbruno
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.443

3.  Improved outcomes following implementation of an acute gastrointestinal bleeding multidisciplinary protocol.

Authors:  Tyler J Loftus; Kristina L Go; Steven J Hughes; Chasen A Croft; Robert Stephen Smith; Philip A Efron; Frederick A Moore; Scott C Brakenridge; Alicia M Mohr; Janeen R Jordan
Journal:  J Trauma Acute Care Surg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.313

Review 4.  RBC Transfusion Strategies in the ICU: A Concise Review.

Authors:  Casey A Cable; Seyed Amirhossein Razavi; John D Roback; David J Murphy
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 7.598

5.  Red blood cell transfusions for emergency department patients with gastrointestinal bleeding within an integrated health system.

Authors:  Dustin G Mark; Jie Huang; Colleen Plimier; Mary E Reed; Gabriel J Escobar; David R Vinson; Nareg H Roubinian
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.469

6.  Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: where are we in 2017?

Authors:  Katy Mary Waddell; Adrian John Stanley; Allan John Morris
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-02-10

7.  Changes in the Whole Blood Donor Population in South-West Germany: 2010 versus 2016.

Authors:  Michael Müller-Steinhardt; Christian Weidmann; Harald Klüter
Journal:  Transfus Med Hemother       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 3.747

Review 8.  Risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD): a meta-analysis.

Authors:  I Cortés-Puch; B M Wiley; J Sun; H G Klein; J Welsh; R L Danner; P Q Eichacker; C Natanson
Journal:  Transfus Med       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 2.019

9.  Proceedings of the Food and Drug Administration's public workshop on new red blood cell product regulatory science 2016.

Authors:  Jaroslav G Vostal; Paul W Buehler; Monique P Gelderman; Abdu I Alayash; Alan Doctor; James C Zimring; Simone A Glynn; John R Hess; Harvey Klein; Jason P Acker; Philip C Spinella; Angelo D'Alessandro; Bernhard Palsson; Thomas J Raife; Michael P Busch; Timothy J McMahon; Marcos Intaglietta; Harold M Swartz; Michael A Dubick; Sylvain Cardin; Rakesh P Patel; Charles Natanson; John W Weisel; Jennifer A Muszynski; Philip J Norris; Paul M Ness
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.157

10.  Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group.

Authors:  Alan N Barkun; Majid Almadi; Ernst J Kuipers; Loren Laine; Joseph Sung; Frances Tse; Grigorios I Leontiadis; Neena S Abraham; Xavier Calvet; Francis K L Chan; James Douketis; Robert Enns; Ian M Gralnek; Vipul Jairath; Dennis Jensen; James Lau; Gregory Y H Lip; Romaric Loffroy; Fauze Maluf-Filho; Andrew C Meltzer; Nageshwar Reddy; John R Saltzman; John K Marshall; Marc Bardou
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.