Frédérique Hovaguimian1, Paul S Myles. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (F.H.); and Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (P.S.M.). Current position: Division of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (F.H.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions are associated with morbidity and mortality. However, restrictive thresholds could harm patients less able to tolerate anemia. Using a context-specific approach (according to patient characteristics and clinical settings), the authors conducted a systematic review to quantify the effects of transfusion strategies. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies applied more than 24 h in adult surgical or critically ill patients. Data were independently extracted. Risk ratios were calculated for 30-day complications, defined as inadequate oxygen supply (myocardial, cerebral, renal, mesenteric, and peripheral ischemic injury; arrhythmia; and unstable angina), mortality, composite of both, and infections. Statistical combination followed a context-specific approach. Additional analyses explored transfusion protocol heterogeneity and cointerventions effects. RESULTS: Thirty-one trials were regrouped into five context-specific risk strata. In patients undergoing cardiac/vascular procedures, restrictive strategies seemed to increase the risk of events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.22), mortality (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.04), and composite events (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24-3322, 3245, and 3322 patients, respectively). Similar results were found in elderly orthopedic patients (inadequate oxygen supply: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.92; mortality: RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.49; composite outcome: RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.54-3465, 3546, and 3749 patients, respectively), but not in critically ill patients. No difference was found for infections, although a protective effect may exist. Risk estimates varied with successful/unsuccessful transfusion protocol implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive transfusion strategies should be applied with caution in high-risk patients undergoing major surgery.
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions are associated with morbidity and mortality. However, restrictive thresholds could harm patients less able to tolerate anemia. Using a context-specific approach (according to patient characteristics and clinical settings), the authors conducted a systematic review to quantify the effects of transfusion strategies. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies applied more than 24 h in adult surgical or critically illpatients. Data were independently extracted. Risk ratios were calculated for 30-day complications, defined as inadequate oxygen supply (myocardial, cerebral, renal, mesenteric, and peripheral ischemic injury; arrhythmia; and unstable angina), mortality, composite of both, and infections. Statistical combination followed a context-specific approach. Additional analyses explored transfusion protocol heterogeneity and cointerventions effects. RESULTS: Thirty-one trials were regrouped into five context-specific risk strata. In patients undergoing cardiac/vascular procedures, restrictive strategies seemed to increase the risk of events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.22), mortality (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.04), and composite events (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24-3322, 3245, and 3322 patients, respectively). Similar results were found in elderly orthopedic patients (inadequate oxygen supply: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.92; mortality: RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.49; composite outcome: RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.54-3465, 3546, and 3749 patients, respectively), but not in critically illpatients. No difference was found for infections, although a protective effect may exist. Risk estimates varied with successful/unsuccessful transfusion protocol implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive transfusion strategies should be applied with caution in high-risk patients undergoing major surgery.
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
Authors: Rodney A Gabriel; Anthony I Clark; Albert P Nguyen; Ruth S Waterman; Ulrich H Schmidt Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Tiffanie Kei; Nikhil Mistry; Albert K Y Tsui; Elaine Liu; Stephen Rogers; Allan Doctor; David F Wilson; Jean-Francois Desjardins; Kim Connelly; C David Mazer; Gregory M T Hare Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp Date: 2017-03-01
Authors: Michelle von Babo; Corinne Chmiel; Simon Andreas Müggler; Julia Rakusa; Caroline Schuppli; Philipp Meier; Manuel Fischler; Martin Urner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240