Colleen G Koch1, Daniel I Sessler2, Edward J Mascha3, Joseph F Sabik4, Liang Li5, Andra I Duncan6, Nicole M Zimmerman3, Eugene H Blackstone7. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: ckoch11@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Outcomes Research, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Outcomes Research, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Class I evidence supporting a threshold for transfusion in the cardiac surgical setting is scarce. We randomly allocated patients to a transfusion hematocrit trigger of 24% versus 28% to compare morbidity, mortality, and resource use. METHODS:From March 2007 to August 2014, two centers randomly assigned 722 adults undergoingcoronary artery bypass graft surgery or valve procedures to a 24% hematocrit trigger (n = 363, low group) or 28% trigger (n = 354, high group). One unit of red blood cells was transfused if the hematocrit fell below the designated threshold. The primary endpoint was a composite of postoperative morbidities and mortality. Treatment effect was primarily assessed using an average relative effect generalized estimating equation model. RESULTS: At the second planned interim analysis, the a priori futility boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped. There was no detected treatment effect on the composite outcome (average relative effect odds ratio, low versus high, 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 2.54, p = 0.71). However, the low group received fewer red blood cell transfusions than the high group (54% versus 75%, p < 0.001), mostly administered in the operating room (low group, 112 [31%]; high group, 208 [59%]), followed by intensive care unit (low, 105 [31%]; high, 115 [34%]) and floor (low, 41 [12%]; high, 42 [13%]). The low group was exposed to lower hematocrits: median before transfusion, 22% (Q1 = 21%, Q3 = 23%) versus 24% (Q1 = 22%, Q3 = 25%). CONCLUSIONS: Negative exposures differed between treatment groups, with lower hematocrit in the 24% trigger group and more red blood cells used in the 28% group, but adverse outcomes did not differ. Because red blood cell use was less with a 24% trigger without adverse effects, our randomized trial results support aggressive blood conservation efforts in cardiac surgery.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Class I evidence supporting a threshold for transfusion in the cardiac surgical setting is scarce. We randomly allocated patients to a transfusion hematocrit trigger of 24% versus 28% to compare morbidity, mortality, and resource use. METHODS: From March 2007 to August 2014, two centers randomly assigned 722 adults undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery or valve procedures to a 24% hematocrit trigger (n = 363, low group) or 28% trigger (n = 354, high group). One unit of red blood cells was transfused if the hematocrit fell below the designated threshold. The primary endpoint was a composite of postoperative morbidities and mortality. Treatment effect was primarily assessed using an average relative effect generalized estimating equation model. RESULTS: At the second planned interim analysis, the a priori futility boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped. There was no detected treatment effect on the composite outcome (average relative effect odds ratio, low versus high, 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 2.54, p = 0.71). However, the low group received fewer red blood cell transfusions than the high group (54% versus 75%, p < 0.001), mostly administered in the operating room (low group, 112 [31%]; high group, 208 [59%]), followed by intensive care unit (low, 105 [31%]; high, 115 [34%]) and floor (low, 41 [12%]; high, 42 [13%]). The low group was exposed to lower hematocrits: median before transfusion, 22% (Q1 = 21%, Q3 = 23%) versus 24% (Q1 = 22%, Q3 = 25%). CONCLUSIONS: Negative exposures differed between treatment groups, with lower hematocrit in the 24% trigger group and more red blood cells used in the 28% group, but adverse outcomes did not differ. Because red blood cell use was less with a 24% trigger without adverse effects, our randomized trial results support aggressive blood conservation efforts in cardiac surgery.
Authors: Babikir Kheiri; Ahmed Abdalla; Mohammed Osman; Tarek Haykal; Sai Chintalapati; James Cranford; Jason Sotzen; Meghan Gwinn; Sahar Ahmed; Mustafa Hassan; Ghassan Bachuwa; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neal Badner; Sean M Bagshaw; Meaghan S Cuerden; Dean A Fergusson; Alexander J Gregory; Judith Hall; Gregory M T Hare; Boris Khanykin; Shay McGuinness; Chirag R Parikh; Pavel S Roshanov; Nadine Shehata; Jessica M Sontrop; Summer Syed; George I Tagarakis; Kevin E Thorpe; Subodh Verma; Ron Wald; Richard P Whitlock; C David Mazer Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Nadine Shehata; Nikhil Mistry; Bruno R da Costa; Tiago V Pereira; Richard Whitlock; Gerard F Curley; David A Scott; Gregory M T Hare; Peter Jüni; C David Mazer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Brian C Cho; Vincent M DeMario; Michael C Grant; Nadia B Hensley; Charles H Brown; Sachidanand Hebbar; Kaushik Mandal; Glenn J Whitman; Steven M Frank Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Simon J Stanworth; Jane A Dennis; Marialena Trivella; Nareg Roubinian; Dean A Fergusson; Darrell Triulzi; Carolyn Dorée; Paul C Hébert Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-12-21
Authors: Pierre Tibi; R Scott McClure; Jiapeng Huang; Robert A Baker; David Fitzgerald; C David Mazer; Marc Stone; Danny Chu; Alfred H Stammers; Tim Dickinson; Linda Shore-Lesserson; Victor Ferraris; Scott Firestone; Kalie Kissoon; Susan Moffatt-Bruce Journal: J Extra Corpor Technol Date: 2021-06
Authors: Gregory M T Hare; Melina P Cazorla-Bak; S F Michelle Ku; Kyle Chin; Nikhil Mistry; Michael C Sklar; Katerina Pavenski; Ahmad Alli; Adriaan Van Rensburg; Jan O Friedrich; Andrew J Baker; C David Mazer Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 6.713