I Cortés-Puch1, B M Wiley1,2, J Sun1, H G Klein3, J Welsh4, R L Danner1, P Q Eichacker1, C Natanson1. 1. Critical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Department of Transfusion Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 4. National Institutes of Health Library, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies (haemoglobin 7-8 g dL-1 ) in patients with and without known cardiovascular disease (CVD). BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend restrictive strategies for CVD patients hospitalised for non-CVD indications, patients without known CVD and patients hospitalised for CVD corrective procedures. METHODS/MATERIALS: Database searches were conducted through December 2017 for randomised clinical trials that enrolled patients with and without known CVD, hospitalised either for CVD-corrective procedures or non-cardiac indications, comparing effects of liberal with restrictive strategies on major adverse coronary events (MACE) and death. RESULTS: In CVD patients not undergoing cardiac interventions, a liberal strategy decreased (P = 0·01) the relative risk (95% CI) (RR) of MACE [0·50 (0·29-0·86)] (I2 = 0%). Among patients without known CVD, the incidence of MACE was lower (1·7 vs 3·9%), and the effect of a liberal strategy on MACE [0·79, (0·39-1·58)] was smaller and non-significant but not different from CVD patients (P = 0·30). Combining all CVD and non-CVD patients, a liberal strategy decreased MACE [0·59, (0·39-0·91); P = 0·02]. Conversely, among studies reporting mortality, a liberal strategy decreased mortality in CVD patients (11·7% vs·13·3%) but increased mortality (19·2% vs 18·0%) in patients without known CVD [interaction P = 0·05; ratio of RR 0·73, (0·53-1·00)]. A liberal strategy also did not benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery; data were insufficient for percutaneous cardiac procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalised for non-cardiac indications, liberal transfusion strategies are associated with a decreased risk of MACE in both those with and without known CVD. However, this only provides a survival benefit to CVD patients not admitted for CVD-corrective procedures. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
AIM: To evaluate the risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies (haemoglobin 7-8 g dL-1 ) in patients with and without known cardiovascular disease (CVD). BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend restrictive strategies for CVDpatients hospitalised for non-CVD indications, patients without known CVD and patients hospitalised for CVD corrective procedures. METHODS/MATERIALS: Database searches were conducted through December 2017 for randomised clinical trials that enrolled patients with and without known CVD, hospitalised either for CVD-corrective procedures or non-cardiac indications, comparing effects of liberal with restrictive strategies on major adverse coronary events (MACE) and death. RESULTS: In CVDpatients not undergoing cardiac interventions, a liberal strategy decreased (P = 0·01) the relative risk (95% CI) (RR) of MACE [0·50 (0·29-0·86)] (I2 = 0%). Among patients without known CVD, the incidence of MACE was lower (1·7 vs 3·9%), and the effect of a liberal strategy on MACE [0·79, (0·39-1·58)] was smaller and non-significant but not different from CVDpatients (P = 0·30). Combining all CVD and non-CVDpatients, a liberal strategy decreased MACE [0·59, (0·39-0·91); P = 0·02]. Conversely, among studies reporting mortality, a liberal strategy decreased mortality in CVDpatients (11·7% vs·13·3%) but increased mortality (19·2% vs 18·0%) in patients without known CVD [interaction P = 0·05; ratio of RR 0·73, (0·53-1·00)]. A liberal strategy also did not benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery; data were insufficient for percutaneous cardiac procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalised for non-cardiac indications, liberal transfusion strategies are associated with a decreased risk of MACE in both those with and without known CVD. However, this only provides a survival benefit to CVDpatients not admitted for CVD-corrective procedures. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Michael L Terrin; Helaine Noveck; David W Sanders; Bernard R Chaitman; George G Rhoads; George Nemo; Karen Dragert; Lauren Beaupre; Kevin Hildebrand; William Macaulay; Courtland Lewis; Donald Richard Cook; Gwendolyn Dobbin; Khwaja J Zakriya; Fred S Apple; Rebecca A Horney; Jay Magaziner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lars B Holst; 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 Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sameer A Hirji; Susanna R Stevens; Linda K Shaw; Erin C Campbell; Christopher B Granger; Manesh R Patel; Michael H Sketch; Tracy Y Wang; E Magnus Ohman; Eric D Peterson; J Matthew Brennan Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Xin Yang; Karen P Alexander; Anita Y Chen; Matthew T Roe; Ralph G Brindis; Sunil V Rao; W Brian Gibler; E Magnus Ohman; Eric D Peterson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-09-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gavin J Murphy; Katie Pike; Chris A Rogers; Sarah Wordsworth; Elizabeth A Stokes; Gianni D Angelini; Barnaby C Reeves Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karen P Alexander; Anita Y Chen; Tracy Y Wang; Sunil V Rao; L Kristin Newby; Nancy M Allen LaPointe; E Magnus Ohman; Matthew T Roe; William E Boden; Robert A Harrington; Eric D Peterson Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Vipul Jairath; Brennan C Kahan; Alasdair Gray; Caroline J Doré; Ana Mora; Martin W James; Adrian J Stanley; Simon M Everett; Adam A Bailey; Helen Dallal; John Greenaway; Ivan Le Jeune; Melanie Darwent; Nicholas Church; Ian Reckless; Renate Hodge; Claire Dyer; Sarah Meredith; Charlotte Llewelyn; Kelvin R Palmer; Richard F Logan; Simon P Travis; Timothy S Walsh; Michael F Murphy Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kevin M Trentino; Shannon L Farmer; Michael F Leahy; Frank M Sanfilippo; James P Isbister; Rhonda Mayberry; Axel Hofmann; Aryeh Shander; Craig French; Kevin Murray Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Richard L Applegate Ii; Patricia M Applegate; Maxime Cannesson; Prith Peiris; Beth L Ladlie; Klaus Torp Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Annemarie B Docherty; Shirjel Alam; Anoop S Shah; Alastair Moss; David E Newby; Nicholas L Mills; Simon J Stanworth; Nazir I Lone; Timothy S Walsh Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 17.440